Message #9

           Sat, 31 Jan 1998 23:59:10 -0500 
           Martin Shackelford 


        Jim Fetzer seems to have a habit of going well beyond the
evidence in his statements. There has been no confirmation of David
Mantik's theory of X-ray alteration (replicating your own work doesn't
count, and Fetzer--who claims knowledge of science--should know better
than to offer it as confirmation), and some (pro-conspiracy) medical
experts have questioned whether optical densitometry proves what David
says it does. Fetzer is doing the same thing when he claims that
Zapruder alteration is "proven." He had to present his own definition of
"proof" in order to try to put that across, and even then he failed.
         The idea that a PhD. in Physics qualifies one as an expert on
8mm film is greatly stretching the truth. If you don't know the field,
if you don't have the needed background, it doesn't matter HOW MANY
years you spend studying something--you may not have a clue what you are
doing. Fetzer repeats his absurd statement that David is "the leading
expert on the Zapruder film in the world!" Apparently he feels that
repeating it will add some credibility to it, but there is none to be
had. Robert Groden has long been far ahead of where Mantik is now
regarding the Zapruder film, probably one reason he hasn't bought into
the current idiocy. Fetzer tries to dismiss him by saying he isn't a
"credentialed expert." Given his professional background as a film
technician (all Fetzer says, typically, is that he is a high school
dropout--this is how you use facts when you are engaged in propaganda,
not truth-seeking), his credentials are far superior to David's in this
field. Then he jumps to discussing Robert Livingston, out of context
here, someone else he calls "a world expert"--apparently this is his
term for anyone who agrees to work with him.
           Fetzer then dismisses me as a social worker, which is true as
far as it goes. Again, this is typical of his slimeball approach to
facts. He leaves out my B.A. in History, my years of experience in 8mm
film and photography in general, my experience working in a photo lab,
my 24 years studying the Zapruder film and other photographic evidence
in this case, etc. He simply wants to discredit critics of his junk food
"science" book--let's call it Assassinating Science.
          As readers of the newsgroups will already know, there are
other knowledgeable people who have criticized the Zapruder alteration
material in his book, including Clint Bradford, Anthony Marsh, Robert
Harris, an 8mm film expert named Galaray, Howard Rogers, James Olmstead,
Tracy Riddle, Jan Stevens, Todd Vaughan, Joe Durnavich and others.
          Regarding Jim's conclusion, I can only say that it describes
him to a T, but I'm afraid that he's incapable of understanding that:
"We should all stand-by for another inconsiderate, thoughtless,
tirade from him telling us he is the only one who understands the