Return to JFK Main Page
Return to Zapruder Film Page
Then, in early July, 1998, I received a reply directly from Dr. Mantik.
Here's the dialogue - posted here with the permission of Drs. Mantik and
Fetzer...
Message 2 - Dr. Mantik's reply, acknowledging the errors.
Message 3 - My reply to Dr. Mantik.
Message 4 - Editor Jim Fetzer's reply.
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:01:23 -0700
From: Clint Bradford
Message One of Four
The original allegations of errors...
Subject: Mantik's Mistakes
From: Clint Bradford
Date: 1998/06/23
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
LISA>>...you said "intentionally misrepresents." That is a very serious
LISA>> accusation, and I expected you would have some substance
LISA>> with which to back that up.
You're right - no one can delve into Mantik's mind and find out WHY he
didn't check his work more closely. Until he, himself, explains to the
world whether or not he "intentionally misrepresented" Palamara's
work, then neither you nor I can dispute my statement. I will let it
stand, and see if he can explain his mis-use of Palamara's work.
CLINT>>...Mantik cites "Warren Commission testimony" from someone who
CLINT>> NEVER TESTIFIED to the WC...he mis-quotes others...attributes a
CLINT>> statement to the wrong source...I have problems accepting any of
CLINT>> his "thesis" when the basic facts are hard for him to absorb
CLINT>> and recite.
LISA>>...please give us the specifics so people can make corrections.
LISA>> Throwing out blanket statements helps no one...
I wish you would simply READ Assassination Science, and you would
discover these problems for yourself.
1. Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
Unfortunately, though, Baker's statement was heresay - he was only
quoting what was told to him by Chaney. It is wrong to cite both as
independent witnesses to bolster any argument.
2. Mantik cites Chaney's statement as "Warren Commission testimony."
Please tell me where, in your copy of the Warren Commission, you find
Chaney's testimony. (Try looking at Mantik's cite of "3H221" for Chaney.)
If a mere mistake on Mantik's part, where's the apology and Errata?
If Mantik, though, is relying on subordinates for research and then
claiming authorship without verifying facts, we have a larger problem.
3. See if you truly believe Mantik's use of Officer Brown's WC
testimony is a fair representation. Don't use the "had to cut it short
due to space constraints" argument. Sure, Brown used the word,
"stopped," in describing the limo. But what Mantik DOESN'T offer
us is his "retraction" during that SAME session of testimony:
Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped...
After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.
Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?
Brown: That, I couldn't swear to.
Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?
Brown: Yes; slowed down.
But don't take my word over Mantik's - look it up yourself.
4. Mantik gives us the impression that Palamara claimed at least 48
witnesses stated that the limo "stopped" right before the fatal head
shot(s).
Please read Palamara's article for yourself, and expecially his
opening remarks regarding his research, to see how Mantik
misrepresented Palamara's work.
Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara's work, and comes up with 14
witnesses who stated "stopped" and 19 (I believe) who stated
"slowed down" - just FYI.
LISA>>...and adds little to your own credibility, raising instead
LISA>> questions of motive.
MY motive? You're not going to label me a "disinformation" agent,
are you???
My sole motivation is to let readers realize that just because a
person has a PhD after their name, or gets published in a work
entitled, "Assassination SCIENCE," that the work is not
necessarily scholarly nor scientific.
LISA>>Please clarify.
Check out the four glaring Mantik errors/misinformation above that
he offers us. Ask yourself why he hasn't apologized for sloppy
reporting, mis-statements, and told us he's fired a couple
researchers. Then publicly question HIS motives - not mine for
merely pointing out errors in a published work.
- Clint Bradford
The above is (C) Copyright 1998, Clint Bradford. All rights reserved.
Permission to re-post or distribute must be obtained by the copyright
holder. If you happen to see this message reproduced in any other
forum, I'd like to know about it. Please either send email to
clintbrad4d@earthlink.net or give me a call at 909-681-6210.
Message Two of Four
Dr. Mantik responds...
Subject: Mantik's Mistakes
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 17:18:12 EDT
From: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx
To: clintbrad4d@earthlink.net
A Response to Clint Bradford: REGARDING MANTIK'S MISTAKES
(Permission obtained to post in writing from Dr. Mantik - CB)
--by David W. Mantik--
3 July 1998
Dear Mr. Bradford:
First let me apologize if I have met you and do not recall you. Tell me,
have we met? In any case, would you be good enough to tell me a little about
yourself?
For your critique, I here provide an item by item response.
1. You are correct that Marrion L. Baker was quoting Chaney about the
limousine stopping (3H266). He also cited several other officers and Roy
Truly as seeing this same event. This is useful information, but you are
correct that it is second hand. I agree that my list would have been
stronger if had I cited an eyewitness. If there is a second edition of
our book, I would substitute one (of many possible) from Vince Palamara's
paper. This is an easy matter to revise.
2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error. I would
have done better to cite Mr. Lane (2H45) in response to the question of
whether the President's limousine had stopped:
"The statement was made by various witnesses, including Mr. Chaney, a
motorcycle policeman, Miss Woodward, who was one of the closest witnesses
to the President at the time that he was shot, and others. I haven't
documented beyond that, because...[it]... seemed to be so generally
conceded by almost everyone, that the automobile came to--almost came to
a complete halt after the first shot--did not quite stop, but almost
did."
You go on to ask where my apology and errata are for this error. Your
question assumes that this had already been pointed out to me (it had not).
Is there reason to believe that someone had already brought this to my
attention?
Regarding errata, I am sending a copy of this response to our editor, Jim
Fetzer, for possible inclusion on his Web site.
You ask whether I relied on subordinates for research and thereafter
claimed authorship without verifying facts. The answer is that I used no
subordinates for this work, but in Assassination Science (Acknowledgments,
p. 341) I credit several colleagues whose contributions to my work were
crucial (that includes this quote). In addition, I indicated there my
willingness to take personal responsibility for any errors that went
undiscovered and I also conceded that they must certainly exist. None of
this is any real surprise--it is, unfortunately, our common human lot,
much as we all dislike it.
3. You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a "retraction" to my
citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this;
in another edition, I would be quite content to include the remainder
of his testimony. I would, however, disagree with your describing this
as a "retraction"--I would find "modification" somewhat more
appropriate. More importantly, however, my own position has never
depended on a complete stop; a significant slowing (which was widely
reported) is quite enough to disagree (disconcertingly) with the
extant version of the Z film.
4. Your comments on my summary of Palamara's article are welcome--and not
surprising. Perhaps this, too, should be revised in a second edition.
I am sending a copy of this response to Vince to get his own input on
how to rephrase this sentence in keeping with the spirit of his article.
5. I agree with your comments about academic credentials. You are quite
right to pay more attention to the quality of the argument than the
so-called prestige of the author. That has always been my very strong
bias as well. But this cuts two ways: if such a position is honestly
held, then there must be no more ad hominem attacks on individuals who
judge the Z film to be altered--merely because they have not worked in
special effects in Hollywood.
Instead, we must all resolve to focus on the real issues and not let
ourselves become distracted by someone's credentials (Mo Weitzman
included).
6. Finally, you ask about my motives. My own habit has been to avoid such
questions because they are usually distractions and, even worse, they
tend to be divisive. Nonetheless, my answer is simple and not mysterious
in the least:
I just want to know what happened. When I first began to explore the
JFK assassination in 1992, I spent several months in a state of some
uncertainty about whether a case could really be made for conspiracy. I
had no initial bias, at least not a conscious one. Just so with the Z
film: I began with an open mind, but as the evidence for alteration
accumulated it began to seem overwhelming, as it still does to me.
Furthermore, I have demonstrated that I am willing to recant when the
data change--as I once did publicly regarding the authenticity of the
X-rays. Later evidence, obtained from Kodak physicists, returned me to
a conclusion of alteration. (Recall also that the head of medical
physics at Kodak did review my X-ray article as it appears
in Assassination Science--and proffered no changes. Do you wish to
offer any critiques of it?) In any case, I trust that we can henceforth
bypass issues of motive. They are usually dead ends.
Please feel free to forward any more editorial comments to Jim Fetzer, who
will pass them to me as needed. Surely there are more items that need to
be revised in a second edition of our book--just keep looking! As a
personal note, however, none of the critiques heretofore received (from
anywhere) have affected my view that the Z film was altered. In fact, I
have been quite astonished that so few significant counterpoints have been
raised--the superficial responses from the critical community at large
have been very disappointing. And John McAdams' assertion that "This whole
body of 'work' was torn apart soon after it was presented at the 1996
Lancer conference," is quite irrelevant (besides being false) since much
of what appears in my chapter in Assassination Science is new.
With all best wishes,
David W. Mantik
cc: Jim Fetzer, Vince Palamara, Lisa Pease.
Message Three of Four
I reply to Dr. Mantik...
Subject: Re: Mantik's Mistakes
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 17:04:00 -0700
From: Clint Bradford
Message Four of Four
Editor Jim Fetzer replies...
Clint,
Please know that I do intend to make some corrections in
response to the points you have raised, but I have not had
a chance to work them out with David yet...
Thanks. I will certainly do something to "clean this up" in the
fourth printing of the book. And if you notice other errors -
large or small - do let me know. Something of this sort must
be a collaborative effort.
It was too late to make the third printing, however, and I
therefore expect to incorporate this in the fourth printing.
In a work of [Assassination Science's] complexity dealing with events
of this magnitude, there will (almost invariably) be some errata. I have
no objections to your bringing these things up - in fact, I appreciate it
greatly - but the vast majority of work that is included in the book is of
a very high standard and the mistakes appear to be relatively minor.
Let us work together and advance the cause of justice for our dead
President.
Jim
James H. Fetzer
Editor
ASSASSINATION SCIENCE
Return to Zapruder Film Page