These simple-minded posts from Howard P. are quite ridiculous. I would
observe that, in those cases in which "credentialed experts" have made
important discoveries--such as Mantik's discoveries that the autopsy X-
rays have been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of
the head, that others have been altered by the imposition of a 6.5 mm
metal object, and that the "magic bullet" theory is anatomically impos-
sible--he denegrates these results and discusses whether I (THE EDITOR)
have the credentials to establish these findings! On virtually every
point except the Zapruder film, "credentialed experts" have spoken out
about the death of JFK in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. Even if the qualifi-
ications of the members of our research group are less imposing in rela-
tion to the discovery that the Zapruder film has been "massively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques", I am not qualifying our results.
That the film has been massively edited has been proven--and more evi-
dence has been discovered by other since the publication of this book.
Rereading the post, I see where I say "the result" when what I intended
to say was "the situation" (meaning: with respect to our "credentials").
He misquotes me by using the phrase, "less THAN clear cut", and confuses
the HYPOTHESIS (that the film has been massively edited using highly so-
phisticated techniques, about which there is, in my judgment, no doubt)
and the CREDENTIALS of those who have established this result, where I
meant to remark (about credentials) that the issue is "less clear cut"!
Mantik has not only discovered that the X-rays were fabricated in ways I
have described but has also replicated the results in experiments of his
own, some of which are described in his work. He has conducted painstak-
ing research on the Zapruder film, including visits to the National Ar-
chives to compare the properties of various prints, making detailed meas-
urements of differences within and between frames, etc. Here, it should
be observed, his Ph.D. in physics strengthens his qualifications for un-
dertaking work of this kind. But the abilities he as developed in inter-
preting X-rays (making very careful observations and measurements, where
his analyses affect life and death) are highly relevant. I am absolutely
convinced that, at this point in time, Mantik is the leading expert on
the Zapruder film in the world! Howard P. has cited Robert Groden and
Martin Shackelford as examples of individuals whose research in this area
he trusts. Neither of them qualifies as a "credentialed expert", however,
which means that he employs inconsistent standards. An especially strik-
ing example concerns Robert B. Livingston's conclusion that diagrams and
photographs of a brain in the National Archives must be of the brain of
someone other than John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which he denigrates on the
ground that this observation has been made before! No doubt, but not by
a world authority on the human brain, precisely the kind of "credentialed
expert" that one would have though that Howard P. would insist upon here.
Those whom he cites as "experts" are curious cases. As I understand it--
and I will no doubt be corrected if I am mistaken--Groden is a high-school
dropout and Shackelford is a social worker! And these are the guys that
Howard P. endorses as his preferred authorities on the Z-film even as he
dismisses the work of Mantik on X-rays, Livingston on the brain, and such.
His position is completely and utterly incoherent! Moreover, he seems to
want other "credentialed experts" to tell him what to think! I suggest to
everyone who cares about these issues, take a good look at the discoveries
of Mantik, Livingston, and others whose work is presented in the book, AS-
SASSINATION SCIENCE, and consider the evidence for yourselves. Howard P.,
Robert Groden, and Martin Shackelford are ill-positioned to help you out.
I should also observe that there are indications in this post that Howard
P. may have not read all of ASSASSIATION SCIENCE or, at least, not read it
very carefully. In some of his closing remarks, for example, he says that
the sorts of conclusions that I have drawn about the conspiracy and cover-
up only follow if the evidence (of film alteration, for example) cannot be
"explained away" on innocent grounds. But that is one of the key points I
make--and illustrate--in the introduction to the Epilogue on pp. 345-348!
He also says, with regard to Mantik's conclusion that the "magic bullet"
theory is anatomically impossible, that he ASSUMES this refers to spinal
damage he "has heard about for years". But for anyone who has read what
Mantik explains on pp. 157-158, there is no need to fake understanding!
We should all stand-by for another inconsiderate, thoughtless, hysterical
tirade from him telling us he is the only one who understands the issues.
James H. Fetzer
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55812
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, jack white wrote:
> another response from Harold.
> Fetzer does it again!
> 30 Jan 1998 15:30:05 GMT
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Howpl)
> AOL http://www.aol.com
> Subject: Posted at request of Dr. Fetzer IN RESPONSE TO PLATZMAN CHARGES
> I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON THESE POINTS AS THEY ARE RAISED BUT THE REAL KILLER
> REMARK COMES AT THE POINT WHERE FETZER BEGINS TO TAKE UP THE Z-FILM DEBATE -
> THE ONLY ONE I'VE COMMENTED ON. SO, PLEASE, STICK WITH THIS.
> Because rational discourse of complex and emotional subjects is difficult
> under the best of circumstances, those who specialize in serious analytic
> work attempt to avoid sarcasm, abuse, and other linguistic "put-downs" in
> order to focus on the issues at hand.
> COUNT UP THE ABUSIVE REMARKS IN OUR POSTS AND THEN TELL ME WHO HAS BEEN MORE
> ABUSIVE. I'VE SAID HIS EDITORIAL CHOICES (SOME FLOWING FROM A POWERFUL EGO)
> HAS HELPED TO SABOTAGE THE CREDIBILITY OF HIS BOOK. HE HAS COME BACK AT ME
> WITH A HOWITZER.
> I thus find it ironic that a former
> student of philosophy
> I'VE ADDRESSED THIS IN A PREVIOUS POST. IF I WERE THE KIND OF GUY FETZER IS,
> I'D HAVE SIGNED OFF ON ALL MY MANY PREVIOUS POSTS WITH "DR. PLATZMAN." I NEVER
> such as Howard P. would disregard its lessons with
> respect to research on the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. For
> the moment, however, shall igore his abusive manner to comment as follows:
> Insofar as Howard P. cares about "credentialed experts", he should agree
> that, with respect to the vast majority of findings presented in the book
> ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, credentialed experts have made those discoveries.
> BUT NOT IN THE FIELDS THEY ARE EXPERTS IN! EVEN MANTIK, WHO KNOWS X-RAYS,
> NEVER GETS TO DEAL WITH DOCTORED X-RAYS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF HIS WORK. HIS
> METHODOLOGY IS INTRUIGING, I DO IN FACT BELIEVE HIS ARGUMENT IS SOUND - BUT
> WHERE IS THE TESTING OF HIS HYPOTHESIS WITH THOSE AS EXPERT AS HE IS? (AND
> FETZER AND I ARE NOT)
> What is odd to me--and indicates the incoherence of his position--is that
> until now, you have heard nothing from him about these results, which are
> of enormous evidential importance to understanding the JFK assassination:
> BECAUSE MANTIK COMES MUCH NEARER TO BEING AN EXPERT ON FRAUDULENT X-RAYS THAN
> ON FRAUDULENT FILM, I DON'T HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF CONCERN. NOW I'M BEING
> ATTACKED FOR NOT REGISTERING UNIFORM DISCONTENT WITH EVERY ARTICLE IN THE BOOK!
> IN FACT, I'VE SAID THAT RON WHITE'S ARTICLE IS SO STRONG THAT IT WOULD HAVE
> SERVED AS A MUCH BETTER INTRODUCTION THAN FETZER'S.
> * that the lateral cranial autopsy X-rays have been fabricated by the
> use of a patch to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head,
> a discovery of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified
> in radiation oncology and an expert on the interpretation of X-rays;
> AGAIN, FETZER HAS PROBABLY NEVER SEEN A DOCTORED X-RAY IN HIS LIFE AND HIS
> METHODOLOGY FOR PROVING FRAUD HAS NOT BEEN DUPLICATED BY, OR EVEN, SUPPORTED BY
> ANYONE WITH EXPERTISE IN ANY RELEVANT AREA - AT LEAST NO ONE HAS YET POINTED ME
> IN THE DIRECTION OF A BURGEONING CONSENSUS ON THE SOUNDNESS OF HIS TECHNIQUES.
> * that the anterior/posterial autopsy X-ray has been altered by the
> imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object in an obvious effort to impli-
> cate a 6.5 mm weapon in the crime, another discovery of David W.
> Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology;
> * that drawings and diagrams of a brain maintained in the National
> Archives must be of the brain of someone other than John Fitzgerald
> Kennedy, which is the conclusion of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., who
> is a world authority on the human brain and wound ballistics expert;
> THIS ONE'S SILLY. LIVINGSTON HAS SAID NOTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN SAID BEFORE, AND
> NOTHING, BY FETZER'S OWN ADMISSION, THAT COULDN'T BE SAID BY A RANK NONEXPERT.
> WHAT WOULD BE GREAT NOW IS IF LIVINGSTON CAN CONVENE AN EXTRAGOVERNMENTAL PANEL
> OF EXPERTS ALONG THE LINES OF THE HSCA PANELS AND PRESENT THIS CONCLUSION AS
> COMING FROM THE TOP MEN AND WOMEN IN THE FIELD. WE'VE GOT TOO MANY "LONE
> EXPERTS" TO MAKE ANY REAL DENT IN THE QUEST TO OPEN A NEW INVESTIGATION.
> * that the single-bullet theory cannot possibly be true, because it is
> anatomically impossible, a result established by David W. Mantik, who
> holds a Ph.D. in physics and well as an M.D. and is board certified
> in radiation oncology and who has studied all the original materials;
> I ASSUME THIS REFERS TO THE SPINAL DAMAGE THAT MANTIK CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE
> OCCURRED GIVEN THE OFFICIAL TRAJECTORY. I'VE HEARD THIS FOR YEARS. I'VE WANTED
> TO BELIEVE. BUT REPEATING YOURSELF A SECOND AND THIRD TIME IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO
> INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION.
> * that Jack was hit at least four times (once in the throat from in
> front, once in the back from behind, and twice in the head from in
> front and from behind), a result that receives support from many dif-
> ferent kinds of evidence (including the Boswell sketch, the shirt and
> jacket, and the Berkley death certificate) but also from David W. Man-
> tik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology, and
> Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain;
> NOW LIST ALL THE CREDENTIALS OF EXPERTS WHO DISAGREE WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS.
> THEY ARE IN MANY CASES MORE IMPRESSIVE - IS THERE AN ALVAREZ ON THE
> CONSPIRACIST SIDE? - AND THERE ARE MORE OF THEM. YES, I KNOW, THE CREDENTIALED
> EXPERTS HAVE MADE A HOLY MESS OF THIS CASE, BUT THERE ARE NEW GENERATION OF
> EXPERTS OUT THERE FETZER ET AL. SHOULD BE REACHING OUT TO. I JUST WONDER TO
> WHAT EXTENT THIS REFLECTS HIS DETERMINATION TO TAKE CENTER STAGE.
> * that an absolute minimum of at least six shots had to have been fired
> in Dealey Plaza that day, namely: four to Jack, at least one (prob-
> ably two) to Connally, and one that missed (striking James Tague), a
> result that follows by addition from the previous finding combined
> with common knowledge about the case that even a professor of phil-
> osophy and former Marine Corps officer such as myself is competent
> to establish on the basis of the assumption that 4 + 1 + 1 = 6; and,
> ALL THIS DEPENDS ON OTHER CONCLUSIONS NOT PROVEN.
> * that the famous "backyard" photographs of Oswald, which many others
> have suggested have been faked (see, for example, Robert Groden, THE
> SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD), have indeed been faked, as Jack White,
> widely acknowledged as an expert on photographic evidence, has shown.
> MARINA OSWALD, WHO IS THESE DAYS TRYING TO ESTABLISH LEE'S INNOCENCE, TOLD TOM
> WILSON THAT SHE REMEMBERS TAKING ONE SUCH PHOTO. IF THE CONSPIRATORS HAD ONE
> AUTHENTIC INCRIMINATING PHOTO, WHY BOTHER CONCOCTING ADDITIONAL FALSE ONES? NO
> REASON THAT COMMON SENSE SUGGESTS. CREATING FAKE PHOTOS, AND UNNECESSARY ONES
> AT THAT, ONLY EXPOSES THEM TO DISCOVERY.
> All of these findings, I submit, meet the most stringent standards that
> anyone could impose with respect to "credentialed expertise". (I would
> therefore be greatly relieved to learn from Howard P. and others that
> they do indeed accept these conclusions as having been establishe.) Our
> other most important findings concern results that are less clear-cut:
> * that the Zapruder film has been massively edited using highly sophis-
> ticated techniques,
> H E R E I T I S F O L K S !!!!!!
> JAMES FETZER, Ph. D. AND WORLD-CLASS EXPERT IN LOGICAL REASONING TELLS US THAT
> HE BELIEVES HE HAS ESTABLISHED "MASSIVE EDITING" - YET CALLS THIS CONCLUSION
> "LESS THAN CLEAR-CUT." MY GOD, WHAT COULD POSSIBLY RECONCILE THESE TWO
> CHARACTERIZATIONS, OCCURRING IN SUCCESSIVE SENTENCES? HE IS VERY CLEARLY
> SAYING THAT HE HAS MASSIVE EVIDENCE OF EDITING BUT STILL HAS ROOM FOR DOUBT.
> HOW MASSSIVE DOES IT NEED TO BE?
> THE ONLY THING THAT COULD RECONCILE THIS APPARENT "BLUNDER" IS IF HE SAID: "WE
> HAVE UNCOVERED A MASSIVE NUMBER OF ANOMALIES, WHICH, IF THEY CAN'T BE EXPLAINED
> AWAY AS INNOCENT ARTIFACTS, WOULD CLEARLY ESTABLISH A COVER-UP." THAT IS HOW
> SOMEONE REASONS LOGICALLY ABOUT THIS "EVIDENCE. ANOMALIES ARE LIKE CLUES IN A
> POLICE INVESTIGATION; THEY ONLY BECOME EVIDENCE, AT WHICH POINT THE CASE GETS
> TURN OVER TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AFTER THEY'VE BEEN CHECKED OUT.
> as Jack White, an expert on photographic evidence,
> particularly still photography, Noel Twyman, and David Mantik, M.D.,
> Ph.D., not previously known for his work in this area, have shown,
> an important point to which I return in subsequent discussion below.
> On the basis of these findings by "credentialed experts" and others who
> are widely acknowledge as experts in their fields (APART FROM THE LAST,
> WHICH IS A MATTER TO WHICH I SHALL RETURN), many inferences have been
> drawn by students of the assassination, including, for example, these:
> * that the Mafia, for example, would not have had the power to reach
> into Bethesda Naval Hospital and fabricate X-rays under the control
> of Naval officers, the Secret Service, and the President's personal
> position, an inference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., a professor
> of the philosophy of science and an expert on critical thinking;
> GEE, TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. (YES, THAT'S SARCASM. HE'S EARNED IN
> * that neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted dia-
> grams and photographs of someone else for those of John F. Kennedy,
> an inference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted;
> * that, even though the KGB may have had the ability, it could not
> have gain possession of the Zapruder film in order to subject it
> to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques, an in-
> ference drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted; and,
> * that neither could any of these things have been done by Lee Har-
> vey Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead, an infer-
> ence drawn by James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., credentials noted once again.
> A STERLING CONTRIBUTION TO THE LITERATURE!
> It follows that neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, the KGB
> or Lee Harvey Oswald--working alone--could have perpetrated the cover-
> up in the ways that "cover-up" has been shown to have been carried out.
> None of these inferences, incidentally, are so complex that they require
> an expert on critical thinking and scientific reasoning to draw them,
> YOU'RE TELLING ME!
> if "credentialed experts" make a difference, his credentials fit the bill.
> 1. OVERSIMPLIFYING AN ARGUMENT SEVERAL TIMES DOES NO MORE TO DEFUSE IT THAN
> OVERSIMPLIFYING IT ONCE
> 2. "HIS" CREDENTIALS: WHY REFER TO HIMSELF IN THE THIRD PERSON? WEIRD.
> So far as I am able to discern, the only case in which the credentials of
> those who are undertaking these studies are subject to any question at
> all is that of the Zapruder film,
> FINALLY TO THE ONLY MATERIAL I'VE WRITTEN ABOUT
> in part because Mantik has not previous-
> ly done film work and White is an expert on still photography rather than
> film. From the study of Mantik's work, however, it should be obvious he
> has done his homework and has become an expert on film editing, not only
> by undertaking the study of specific aspects of film editing but also by
> consulting others as appropriate.
> WHO? WHAT ARE THEIR CREDENTIALS? ANY SPECIAL EFFECTS EXPERTS AMONG THEM? WILL
> THEY COME FORWARD TO SUPPORT HIS THEORY?
> Many of the oddities indicating that
> the film has been edited, moreover, are present in individual frames as
> still photograph, where Jack White qualifies as an expert.
> HOW DO I KNOW THAT STILL FRAMES OF A PHOTOGRAPH ARE COMPARABLE IN EVERY
> RELEVANT WAY TO STILL PHOTOS?
> Noel Twyman,
> again, appears to me to be completely competent to undertake the kind of
> head turn studies that he has conducted with great precision.
> LIVINGSTONE AND SHACKLEFORD HAVE ALREADY DEMOLISHED THE GREER HEAD TURN CLAIM.
> THE ROTATION WAS SHORTER THAN CLAIMED AND TOOK AS MANY AS FOUR FRAMES, NOT ONE
> AS CLAIMED.
> Of course,
> it would be great to draw unbiased experts into the study of the assas-
> sination, and David and I (as well as Jack and Noel) both hope that this
> will happen.
> PLEASE, JIM, I WANT YOU TO BE RIGHT - AND I THINK YOU'VE GOT A BETTER CHANCE OF
> BEING RIGHT WITH THE AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOS, BUT THIS GROUP CANNOT DO IT
> ALONE. IF YOU ARE REACHING OUT, LET US KNOW.
> I personally am convinced that Mantik's thorough and pains-
> taking studies will withstand critical scrutiny and that his findings are
> going to be replicated by other suitably conducted studies of the film.
> FORGIVE MY PESSIMISM - IT NEVER HAPPENED WITH THE NOW 4-PLUS-YEARD-OLD OPTICAL
> DENSITY BLOCKBUSTER AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY. CAN YOU TELL US WHY THAT FIZZLED?
> COULD IT BE THAT YOU ARE USING THE TACTICS THAT ARE INADVERTENTLY
> SOMEONE SENT ME AN E-MAIL SAYING THAT THE Z-FILM TAMPERING MUST BE AN ATTEMPT
> BY THE CONSPIRATORS TO TAKE THE HEAD SNAP AWAY FROM US AND THROW THE RESEARCH
> COMMUNITY INTO DISARRAY. I DOUBT IT, BUT IT WOULD BE A BRILLIANT STROKE.
> Indeed, I am delighted to report that new discoveries are being made of
> other indications of tampering with the film in obvious respects.
> ANY BY EXPERTS IN SPECIAL EFFECTS EDITING?
> In my
> view, we have turned the corner with respect to understanding the assas-
> sination of Jack Kennedy because the work reported in this book "cracks
> the cover-up" and provides extremely powerful evidence in support of the
> conclusion that JFK was killed as the result of a large-scale conspiracy.
> "ODDITIES" BECOME "EVIDENCE" WITH A FEW QUICK KEY STROKES.
> James H. Fetzer
> McKnight Professor
> University of Minnesota
> Duluth, MN 55812
> - HOWARD P.
> > >______________________
> > >
> > >Since Howard P. is, by his own admission, incompetent to judge the merits
> > >of the arguments advanced in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, we shall have to await
> > >those who are competent to carry forward the serious discussion of issues
> > >involved here, which are cleary not advanced by the hysterical, irrational
> > >and irrelevant remarks of his past posts and no doubt future ones as well.
> > >
> > >James H. Fetzer
> > Yes, folks, I admit, I don't have specialized training in special effects
> > editing. So I take the totally irrational position of waiting to hear from
> > those WITH such expertise before I reach any conclusions. I must be some
> > of nut.
> > All this from an expert in logic who fails to understand that anomalies can
> > have evidential weight only if they can't be explained away as innocent
> > artifacts. Fetzer doesn't have the expertise to know what can and can't be
> > explained away.
> > -Howard