Message #4

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.  I thus find it ironic that a former
student of philosophy such as Howard P. would disregard its lessions 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.
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:

  * 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;

  * 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;

  * 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;

  * 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;

  * 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,

  * 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.

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, 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;

  * 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.

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, but
if "credentialed experts" make a difference, his credentials fit the bill.

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, 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.  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.  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.  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.  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.
Indeed, I am delighted to report that new discoveries are being made of
other indications of tampering with the film in obvious respects.  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.


James H. Fetzer
McKnight Professor
University of Minnesota
Duluth, MN 55812

> >______________________
> >
> >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 film
> 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 kind
> 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