Message #23



Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 17:30:46 -0600
From: jack white 
To: james fetzer 
Subject: HOWARD*S LATEST

JUST RECEIVED:

Subject: 
             Platzman Responds to Fetzer 
        Date: 
             10 Feb 1998 22:45:15 GMT 
       From: 
             howpl@aol.com (Howpl)
Organization: 
             AOL http://www.aol.com 
 Newsgroups: 
             alt.conspiracy.jfk

Jack White posted th following with a misleading subject as the great bulk of
this response was directed at me - Howard Platzman

CAP LETTERS IN PARENTHESES ARE MY CURRENT RESPONSES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Subject: More Jim vs Martin vs Jim vs Martin
From: jack white 
Date: Mon, May 4, 1998 11:11 EDT
Message-id: <34D8DA87.698@flash.net>

RESPONSE TO RESPONSE: (posted at request of Jim because he is not on the net)

Subject:
Re: Concerning Some Bad Arguments
Date:
Tue, 3 Feb 1998 21:00:49 -0600 (CST)
From: james fetzer 

I shall attempt to deal with some recent arguments from M. Shackelford
and from Howard P. that attack David Mantik's work on the autopsy X-rays,
which are models of scientific inquiry.  It should be apparent that the
arguments they advance, although plausible on their face, are specious
and should carry no weight.  They are examples of fallacious reasoning.

The first comes from a post by Martin Shackelford...
 
The second is from a post by Howard P...

[NOTE: INSTEAD OF COPYING MY ENTIRE POST, FETZER COPIES ONLY THOSE PASSAGES HE
WANTS TO ANSWER. THE REMAINDER OF MY POST IS CONVENIENTLY IGNORED. I SUPPOSE I
SHOULD BE THANKFUL AS THIS IS ONE STEP UP FROM HIS TACTIC THE LAST GO-ROUND OF
PARAPHRASING (WRONGLY).]

   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)
  
When I first read this rebuttal, I thought it was very pecular, indeed,
insofar as Howard P. seems to be insisting that there have to be experts
in the fabrication of X-rays in order to make such discoveries.

"SEEMS"? - ONLY TO READERS WHOSE INTENTIONS ARE BAD.

  Mantik
in fact is an expert on X-rays and board certified in radiation oncology,
where his interpretations of X-rays may make the difference between life
and death.  Moreover, he suspected that the lateral cranial X-rays were
fabricated on the basis of naked-eye inspection, because the contrast be-
tween light and dark appeared much too great to be ordinary X-rays.  In
any case, he went to the Archives, studied the X-rays, repeated his re-
sults (again and again), and has now discovered how to fabricate X-rays.
In the beginning when only the conspirators knew how this could be done,
of course, there were no experts on X-ray fabrication.  There are now!
It was at least faintly ridiculous to suggest (as Howard P. does here)
that X-ray fabrication is a separate "field" from X-ray interpretation.
By that standard, if you must have a "credentialed expert" in a non-ex-
istent field to establish such results, they could never be established.
The reason why others have not replicated his results appears to be the
demanding credentials it takes (someone with a high level of competence
in physics with respect to optical densitometry who is also an expert
with respect to the interpretation of X-rays).

[MANTIK HAS A SCIENTIFIC INTEREST IN ENSURING THAT OTHERS CAN REPLICATE HIS
RESULTS, WHICH TO ME MEANS HE NEEDS TO REACH OUT TO OTHER BRILLIANT MINDS IN
EXPLORING THIS NEW FIELD.  AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TIMES, ONES ABILITY TO
REPLICATE ONE'S OWN RESULTS COMES TO NEAR CHECKING A SECOND COPY OF THE SAME
EDITION OF A NEWSPAPER TO VERIFY A STORY APPEARING IN THE FIRST COPY
(WITTGENSTEING, HERR PROFESSOR)]

  So far as I am aware, he
is in a class by himself as the most highly qualified individual to ever
study the autopsy X-rays.  Neither I nor Howard P. are experts in these
areas, of course, which I have never claimed and he would never deny.

[FETZER'S FIRST READING OF THIS WAS INDEED INCORRECT. I WAS NOT SUGGESTING THAT
ANY UNIVERSITY HANDS OUT DEGREES IN X-RAY FABRICATION.  THERE IS NO SUCH
"FIELD," OF COURSE.  YOU KNOW IT -- AND I KNOW YOU KNOW I KNOW IT.  SO AFTER
PARADING AROUND WITH THIS OBVIOUSLY SILLY INTERPRETATION, WHAT DID FETZER'S
SECOND READING TELL HIM.  WE WOULDN'T KNOW SINCE IT IS NOT IN HIS INTERESTS TO
VENTURE ONE - HIS PURPOSE IS SERVED BY CREATING A VERY SILLY STRAW MAN AND THEN
FLATTENING IT WITH A HEAVY TRACTOR.

MANTIK MAY BE "IN A CLASS BY HIMSELF" BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN HE
GETS TO PRONOUNCE TRUTHS FROM THE MOUNTAINTOPS AS IF HE WERE COMMUNICATING THE
WORD OF GOD.  I'M SURE HIS SELF-DESCRIPTION WOULD BE MORE MEASURED.  AND I'M
SURE HE KNOWS QUITE WELL WHAT HE HAS TO DO NEXT (WHAT THAT ELUSIVE SECOND
READING SUGGESTS), I.E., ASK NEURORADIOLOGISTS (NOT JUST RADIATION ONCOLOGISTS)
WHETHER THEY SEE ANYTHING STRANGE IN THE X-RAYS; EDUCATE HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE
JFK CASE; REACH OUT TO EXPERTS IN THE USE OF OPTICAL DENSITOMETRY AND INTRODUCE
THEM TO THOSE FAMILIAR WITH X-RAY INTERPRETATION:  IN OTHER WORDS, GIVE HIS
PEERS - THOSE WITH DEEP EXPERTISE IN THE MATERIALS HE'S ANALYZING AND THE
TECHNIQUES HE'S USING (MANTIK, I WOULD SAY, HAS THE WIDEST EXPERTISE, BUT NOT
THE DEEPEST) - THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE EQUALS AT LEAST.  GIVE THEM A BASIS TO
HELP HIM MAKE SENSE OF HIS RESULTS. TALKING TO THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY IS
TALKING TO THE ALREADY FAITHFUL -- OR TO THOSE WHO'VE WAY OUTLIVED THEIR
POLITICAL USEFULNESS (I.E., LONE
MEDICAL GUNMAN WECHT).

IT HAS BEEN ALMOST FIVE YEARS SINCE MANTIK WENT PUBLIC WITH HIS
FIRST OPTICAL DENSITY READINGS -- AND HE'S STILL "IN A CLASS BY
HIMSELF" IN THE SADDEST READING OF THAT PHRASE.  I'M SORRY, BUT
THIS IS A POLITICAL EFFORT AT THE SAME TIME THAT IT IS A MEDICAL
AND MURDER MYSTERY.  IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY, YOU DO EVERYTHING IN
YOUR POWER TO TEST YOUR FINDINGS WITH YOUR
INTELLECTUAL PEERS (EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DRAG THEM DOWN TO THE
ARCHIVES TO DO IT), YOU BUILD A DISTINGUISHED GROUP OF SUPPORTERS (ASSUMING
YOU'VE PASSED THEIR TESTS); AND THEN AND ONLY THEN DO YOU CALL A PRESS
CONFERENCE OR GO TO CONGRESS TO LOBBY FOR A NEW INVESTIGATION.  ANYTHING LESS
OPENS YOU TO PUBLIC RIDICULE AND SETS BACK THE RESEARCH EFFORT -- OR AT LEAST
THE POLITICAL POTENCY OF THAT EFFORT.]

 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,

[SHOULDN'T BE ODD IF YOU READ THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH ("BECAUSE MANTIK IS...")]


  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.

Here I am still a bit baffled.  Anyone who had actually read the book (as
Howard P. suggests he had) would understand by now that, if there is any-
one who is expert on X-rays, fabricated or not, it is David W. Mantik!  I
brought up other discoveries reported in the book on which Howard P. had
not commented simply because they would seem to meet the requirements he
maintains have to be satisfied, namely:  that such findings be estabished
by "credentialed experts", which is indeed the case for virtually every-
thing we claim to have established (with the exception of our analysis of
the Zapruder film, which I have elsewhere addressed).  So in consistency
he ought to have acknowledged that.

[I CLEARLY ACKNOWLEDGED A DIFFERENCE IN MY LEVEL OF COMFORT. I'M STILL WAITING
FOR MANTIK'S 5-YEAR-OLD RESEARCH TO TAKE THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY BY STORM.
WHY ARE YOU SO RESISTANT TO SEEKING SUPPORTERS AMONG PEOPLE THAT COUNT?]

Instead what does he do but display
ignorance of Mantik's work that clearly qualifies him as an expert (and
a "credentialed" one at that!) on fabricated and unfabricted X-rays, etc.

[NO ONE'S CREDENTIALED IN FABRICATED X-RAYS, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN OTHER
EXPERTS CAN'T BE LET IN ON MANTIK'S SECRETS.]

Ron White's article, by the way, is not an introduction to the book and
therefore could not have served as one in lieu of the Prologue.

[DEPENDS ON HOW YOU CHOOSE TO WRITE AN INTRODUCTION.]

  It is
an outstanding discussion of the problems encountered in assassination
research, however, which is why I wanted to make it the first part (in
lieu of the JAMA material) of the book.  My in-house editor suggested it
was too difficult for most readers because of its philosophical charac-
ter and that it put off for too long getting into the issues, but it was
my preference that it should appear immediately after the Prologue.

[BRAVO!]

 In
particular, it illustrates problems we had to overcome in our research.
The rest of the book shows that science can still contribute to the case.

   * 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.

There is a persistent pattern in Howard P.'s posts of offering himself as
THE STANDARD OF ALL STANDARDS for measuring progress in this case.  For
example, "NO ONE HAS YET POINTED ME", he says, as though that made a dif-
ference to anyone!

[A FIGURE OF SPEECH.  TRANSLATED FOR THE HOPELESSLY LITERAL-
MINDED: I HAVEN'T SEEN SUCH A CONSENSUS DEVELOPING.  SKETCH IT
OUT FOR ME IF YOU HAVE.]

  Unless Howard P. could establish that his standards
are the appropriate standards to apply, these are merely reports on his
personal history (of belief and non-belief, credulity and non-credulity,
and so forth) of no systematic or objective significance to these issues
at all.  He ought to come down off his high horse and explain why anyone
should care what he thinks about these things, because he has yet to offer
any of us a good reason.

[I SUPPOSE IN A SENSE I DO "OFFER MYSELF" AS THE STANDARD FOR
MEASURING PROGRESS IN THIS CASE.  IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE ME,
SOMEONE WHO STILL BELIEVES IN A CONSPIRACY, THAT YOU'VE DONE
ANYTHING MORE HERE THAN THE EQUIVALEET OF LISTING 86 REASONS WHY YOU THINK
"PAUL IS DEAD" (HAVE YOU RUN THE FILM BACKWARDS YET), THEN YOU ARE UNLIKELY TO
HAVE AN EASIER TIME WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD.   ASK MANTIK ABOUT HIS FRIEND RANDY
ROBERTSON.  I UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOOD DOCTOR WAS TORN TO SHREDS WHEN
TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS A FEW YEARS AGO.  HE MAY HAVE BEEN RIGHT AS RAIN -
BUT HE HAD A CLUE AS TO HOW BEST TO PRESENT HIS CASE -- AND MY POINT IS NEITHER
DO YOU.]

 (And his possession of a Ph.D. in philosophy is
a good reason only if it made a difference to his ability to analyze and
understand arguments, which--I have repeatedly demonstrated--it has not.)

[I WILL HAPPILY LAY THE ENTIRETY OF THIS DEBATE BEFORE JOSIAH
THOMPSON OR ANYONE ELSE YOU THINK SUFFICIENTLY SCHOOLED IN BOTH THE JFK CASE
AND PHILOSOPHY AND ASK WHO THEY THINK HAS
REPEATEDLY ENGAGED IN BLATANTLY SELF-SERVING, I.E., BAD,
REASONING.  INDEED, EVEN THE HYSTERICAL TONE OF YOUR
ARGUMENTATION IS A BETRAYAL OF THE OBJECTIVITY TO WHICH YOU
ASPIRE.  YOU ARE NO POSTER BOY FOR LOGICAL REASONING.

I can only assume that Howard P. meant to say "MANTIK" where he actually
says "FETZER", since I make no claims to expertise where X-rays are con-
cerned.  Mantik's qualifications are manifest, regardless of whether his
discoveries have yet to be replicated by others of comparable expertise.

I skip ahead to other aspects of this post I have not discussed before:

   * 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.
     Mantik, 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.

Notice Howard P.'s very unphilosophical deference to authorities such as
Luis Alvarez here!  It is of course somewhat difficult to interpret what
he means with respect to the multiple claims made in my post:  is he as-
serting that Jack was not hit once in the throat from in front?  But we
have much evidence to that effect, including Malcolm Perry's reports dur-
ing the Parkland Press conference, confirmed by Charles Crenshaw and al-
so widely reported on radio and television the day of the assassiation
and reported in The New York Times (23 November 1963), p. 2.  Is this
what he denies?  How about once in the back from behind?  We have Bos-
well's diagram, the shirt and the jacket he was wearing, the death cer-
tificate executed by Admiral Berkeley, an FBI report of 9 December 1963.
If we don't have enough evidence to establish this--a result that even
the HSCA medical panel endorses--then we must know very little indeed
about the death of JFK.  As for two shots to the head, one from behind
and one from in front, we have both Josiah Thompson's analysis in SIX
SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967) and David Mantik's analysis in ASSASSINATION
SCIENCE (1998), which appears on pp. 156-157.  So which of these find-
ings does Howard P. not accept?  I also wonder how much of the book he
has actually read to be citing Luis Alvarez as though his claims had
not been throughly discredited.

IN A FORTH DECADE ARTICLE I WROTE (MAY 1997), I SAID I FOUND MILICENT CRANOR'S
CRITICISM OF ALVAREZ CONVINCING (FOR WHAT MY OPINION IS WORTH).  I MENTION
ALVAREZ MERELY BECAUSE YOU MUST HAVE WRITTEN "PH.D". A HUNDRED TIMES IF YOU'VE
WRITTEN IT ONCE THROUGH YOUR SERIES OF POSTS.  IT'S YOU, ULTIMATELY, THAT WANTS
TO PLAY THIS AS A BATTLE OF CREDENTIALS. MY SUPPOSITION IS THAT CREDENTIALS
IMPLY A CERTAIN LEVEL OF KNOWLEDGE -- NOT THAT THEY AUTOMATICALLY DETERMINE WHO
HAS MADE THE BEST CASE.  THIS IS THE ARGUMENT, AND A RATHER EASY-TO-FOLLOW ONE
AT THAT, THAT YOU KEEP MISREPRESENTING TO SERVE YOUR PURPOSES, CHIEF AMONG THEM
MAKING ME SOUND LIKE I BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE GET DIPLOMAS IN X-RAY FABRICATION
AND OTHER SUCH INANITIES.  WHEN IN DOUBT, CREATE A STRAW MAN, RIGHT JIM?


Take a look at the index of the book
and you will discover multiple entries for Alvarez, including a dis-
cussion of the "jet effect" in Ron White's piece, which suggests that
Alvarz has done no more than offer a speculation for which there is no
evidence, absent establishing the existence of the causal factor that
he invokes, and a critique of his work on "jiggle analysis" by Michael
Stroscio, which David Mantik considered to be so important that he had
it included as an appendix to his own work (found on pp. 343-344).  If
Howard P. read the book more carefully, he would have discovered this.
 
   * 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.

I am really not sure which matters remain "not proven" in the mind of
Howard P.

LET'S SEE. HOW MANY OF THESE ISSUES ARE STILL HOTLY CONTESTED
WITHIN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY.  LET'S START WITH THE ENTRY WOUND IN THE NECK.
NOT DISPUTED.  AND THE SHOT TO THE BACK, "A
RESULT," FETZER INSISTS, "THAT EVEN THE HSCA MEDICAL PANEL
ENDORSES."  THEY DO!  ARE WE TALKING 5 1/2 INCHES DOWN THE BACK,
WHICH WOULD HAVE CREATED A WILDLY IMPOSSIBLE UPWARD ANGLE TO PASS THROUGH THE
THROAT.  THE HSCA ENDORSED THIS?  I DON'T THINK SO.  A SLIGHT UPWARD
TRAJECTORY, YES.  THE PLACEMENT AT T-3 (AS IT APPEARS ON BOSWELL'S DIAGRAM, AS
SUGGESTED BY THE HOLES IN JFK'S COAT AND SHIRT, AS APPEARS ON THE DEATH
CERTIFICATE), NO.

  Moreover, I really don't care.  The evidence supporting all
of these and other claims made in the book are discussed there, and we
have no reason to believe that Howard P.'s thoughts matter to us at all.
 
   * 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.

This, I must admit, is one of the most baffling passages that I have yet
to find coming from Howard P., but it reinforces my opinion that what he
thinks really doesn't matter.  If Howard P. is unaware that there were at
least three backyard photographs, then he ought to consult Robert Groden's
THE SEARCH FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD (1995), especially pp. 90-95.  Are we to
infer, based upon Howard P.'s peculiar logic, that in fact "the conspira-
tors" only took one photograph, so the others must be fakes?  That is an
original argument, but entirely absurd.  Moreover, Marina recalled taking
one photograph but in the opposite direction, where the steps should not
be in the picture at all.  Just out of curiousity, how did "the conspir-
ators" know that their one photograph would come out just right?  That is
an interesting question that flows from Howard P.'s odd line of thought.
Howard P. makes other assertions in this post, but none worth discussing.

THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE DENSEST RESPONSE I'VE EVER HEARD TO A
QUESTION I'VE POSED TO OTHERS WITH MANY FEWER LETTERS AFTER THEIR NAMES THAN
FETZER BOASTS.  THE POINT, JIM, IS THAT MARINA CLAIMS SHE TO A PHOTO OF LEE
HOLDING HIS RIFLE AND SOCIALIST NEWPAPERS.  THAT PHOTO ALONE WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO INCRIMINATE HIM.  YOU DON'T GO TO THE BOTHER OF CREATING TWO MORE
FAKE ONES FOR NO REASON AT ALL.  AND, YES, I'M AWARE OF MARINA'S CLAIM THAT SHE
TOOK THE PICTURE FACING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.  LEAVING ASIDE FOR THE
MOMENT THAT WE WERE IN THE SAME ROOM AT ASK '93 WHEN SHE HEARD ME RAISE THIS
VERY QUESTION ABOUT THE NEED FOR FAKES - AND SHE CHOSE NOT TO REPEAT THE
ASSERTION THAT HER PICTURE FACED THE OTHER WAY -- SPIN MY ANY COHERENT LINE YOU
CAN FOR WHY ONE DAMNING PIECE OF EVIDENCE DID NOT SUIT THE CONSPIRATORS' NEEDS.
FOR SOME UNFATHOMABLE REASON, THEY NEEDED ONE REAL ONE FACING THE
STREET AND TWO FAKES ONES FACING THE STAIRS.  HERE YOU'VE GOT
OSWALD THE PATSY WITH THE MURDER WEAPON IN ONE HAND AND
COMMUNIST/SOCIALIST LITERATURE IN THE OTHER -- AND, YET, SOMEHOW THIS DOES NOT
SUFFICE.  THIS, JIM, IS KNOWN TECHNICALLY AS A COMMON SENSE QUESTION, REQUIRING
NO ADVANCED DEGREES IN LOGICAL REASONING TO ASK OR ANSWER.  SURE, IT'S POSSIBLE
THE CONSPIRATORS DID LOTS OF THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE COMMON SENSE - PEOPLE ARE
FUNNY THAT WAY - BUT TO MISS THE POINT ENTIRELY, TO IGNORE IT AS YOU DO, IS
TRULY FRIGHTENING.

The situation, as I see it, is as follows.  David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.,

BATTLE OF THE CREDENTIALS, PART 101

has undertaking pathbreaking studies of the autopsy X-rays which stand as
the most thorough, painstaking, and complete to which they have ever been
subjected.  His measurements, which he has replicated repeatedly,

AND WHO IS THE ONLY ONE IN THE WORLD WHO CAN DO THIS

 provide
empirical evidence that the X-rays have been fabricated--and, indeed, in
two different ways!  This evidence is relevant, consistent, and uncontra-
dicted.  It therefore--at the very least!--establishes a prima facie case
that the X-rays have been fabricated!  No one knows more about the X-rays
at this point in time than does David Mantik.

Unless he is incompetent,it is difficult to imagine

FOR YOU TO IMAGINE, YOU MEAN, GIVEN YOUR EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD.

 where he has gone wrong; and there is nothingto suggest his incompetence.

HIGHLY COMPETENT SOMETIMES TRAVEL DOWN THE WRONG ROAD.

 The burden of proof has therefore shiftedto those who, in spite of this very
imposing empirical evidence, want to
maintain that the X-rays have not been fabricated after all!  But they
had better produce evidence, because an absence of evidence cannot over-
ride the impressive studies that a "credentialed expert" has conducted.

CALL ANOTHER OF YOUR FAMOUS PRESS CONFERENCES AND TRY
THIS ON REPORTERS. LET'S SEE HOW THE LONE MEDICAL GUNMAN GOES OVER WITH THEM.
 
The situation regarding the film is highly analogous, though not exact.
For reasons I have outlined elsewhere, Mantik appears to have precisely
the right general abilities (for making very careful observations and
measurements) to conduct analyses of the film of the kind that he has
undertaken.  (I cannot imagine anyone who has actually read his studies
thinking that he was not competent to undertake them!  But I have found
several indications that Shackelford has in fact not read the book and
others that suggest that Howard P. has at least not read it carefully.)
DISINFORMATION PAGE