Message #2


Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:20:56 -0600
From: jack white 
To: james fetzer 
Subject: ANOTHER HOWARD POSTING

THE LATEST:

Subject: 
             A Research Proposal 
        Date: 
             26 Jan 1998 22:55:48 GMT 
       From: 
             howpl@aol.com (Howpl)
Organization: 
             AOL http://www.aol.com 
 Newsgroups: 
             alt.conspiracy.jfk


Subject: Re: forwarded at request of Jim Fetzer
From: mtodd14694@aol.com (MTodd14694)
Date: Sat, Jan 24, 1998 01:49 EST
Message-id: <19980124064901.BAA11889@ladder02.news.aol.com>

James H. Fetzer

>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.

   We would have been better off had Jim Fetzer gotten off of his duff and
   submitted the Z-film articles in _Assassination_Science_  to someone with
   a good background in film effects.  Jack White, Dr. Mantik, et al,
   just don't have the knowledge base needed to properly judge the issues
   they raise. I have no doubt that they are sincere in their film-analysis
   endeavor, but sincerity just isn't enough to do the job right.

OF COURSE, I AGREE.

   I'm not particularly disappointed with what's in _AS_; however, I find that
   the title is misleading and, frankly, pretentious. In my mind, a book named
   _Assassination_Science_ would contain articles on various forensic science
  aspects of the case written by acknowledged experts in the field, remedial
  reading on forensic technique, etc. Fetzer's book has *none* of this!
  Why couldn't Fetzer come up with a better title or, better yet, ackowledged
  experts?

BECAUSE HE THINKS HE HAS EXPERTS, THOUGH NONCREDENTIALED ONES.  OF COURSE, THIS
DISPARAGING OF CREDENTIALS FADES INTO  THE DISTANCE WHEN IT SUITS HIM, I.E.,
PULLING RANK ON A NON-TEACHING PHILOSOPHER.  HE PLAYS THE SAME GAME IN HIS
DISCUSSION OF SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS: THEY MAKE "PRISONERS" OF EVERYONE -- EXCEPT
HIM.
 
  Mitch Todd

  BTW, has anyone contacted a film effects shop about looking at the Zapruder
film?

GOOD QUESTION.

HERE'S AN EVEN BETTER QUESTION.  WHY DO WE CUT OURSELVES OFF FROM THE COMMUNITY
OF EXPERTS - AUTHORITIES IN THE FIELD THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO COMMENT ON,
PEOPLE WHO CAN TELL US WHETHER THESE ANOMALIES ARE INNOCENT ARTIFACTS OR NOT?
THE FACT THAT CREDENTIALED EXPERTS HAVE PERFORMED MISERABLY IN THE PAST IS NOT
GOOD ENOUGH.

A PROPOSAL:
SOMEHOW, INSTEAD OF PREACHING TO (AND SQUABBLING WITH) EACH OTHER, WE SHOULD
CONSTITUTE A LOOSE, EXTRA-GOVERNMENTAL PANEL OF EXPERTS TO REVIEW OUR FINDINGS
WITH US.  WOULDN'T YOU JUST LOVE TO SEE MANTIK SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS HIS Z-FILM
FINDINGS WITH REAL SPECIAL EFFECTS EDITORS OR HIS AUTOPSY X-RAY FINDINGS WITH
OTHERS SKILLED ENOUGH TO OFFER ANALYSIS.

WE SHOULD DO IT THE WAY THE HSCA ALMOST DID IT, NOT AS THE INSULAR CULT
MEETINGS OUR CONFERENCES TEND TO BE. WOULD THIS TAKE A LOT OF MONEY?  I'M NOT
SURE.  WORK?  YES.  ROUNDING UP EXPERTS WILLING TO PARTICIPATE WILL NOT BE
EASY, BUT, INITIALLY, INFORMAL CONTACTS COULD BE MADE AND WE COULD GET
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS. IT'S JUST POSSIBLE, THAT, WITH THEIR INTEREST PIQUED,
THEY COULD VOLUNTEER MORE TIME TO THIS EFFORT -- AS, INDEED, MANTIK HAS.

FETZER DOESN'T SEEM TO GRASP THAT, EVEN IF HE HAS ALIT UPON THE TRUTH, HE STILL
NEEDS TO SELL IT.   I UNDERSTAND THE TEMPTATION TO SAY, "SCREW 'EM, THEY'LL
NEVER GO FOR ANOTHER INVESTIGATION, THE BASTARDS."  BUT WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE
US?  CAN WE REALLY BE SATISFIED AFTER THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AGREES WITH ITSELF
(AS IF THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYTIME SOON)?

MANY, MANY EXPERTS AND MANY, MANY PEOPLE IN POSITIONS OF POWER SIMPLY DON'T
UNDERSTAND THIS CASE.  WE NEED TO BE THEIR TEACHERS, SO THEY CAN BECOME OURS.
IF OUR PANELS DO NO BETTER THAN THE HSCA PANELS, AT LEAST WE'VE TRIED - BUT IF
THEY COME THROUGH...

IF THE EDITOR OF JAMA WERE A PAL OF WECHT'S AS OPPOSED TO A PAL OF HUMES, THIS
WHOLE CASE COULD HAVE TURNED AROUND YEARS AGO.  JUST BECAUSE OF WHO YOU KNOW.
THINK OF THAT!

TOO BAD TRUTH IS NOT ENOUGH, BUT WE ALL KNOW IT ISN'T.
-HOWARD P.
     


REMEMBER IT WAS SEN. RUSSELL'S OFF-THE-CUFF REMARK TO GARRISON THAT SPURRED HIS
EDUCATION AND THE ONLY REAL TRIAL EVER HELD IN THIS CASE.

DISINFORMATION PAGE