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...

Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:01:23 -0700
From: Clint Bradford 
To: james fetzer 
Cc: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx, lpease@netcom.com
Subject: Re: Mantik's Mistakes

As I just wrote Dr. Mantik, I found our dialogue last week 
extremely healthy and civil. And I would like permission to 
post your email message to me on my Web site's Zapruder 
film sub-page.

I would like to post all five (so far) messages: my initial 
post in an assassination newsgroup, followed by Dr. Mantik's
response, my reply to him, your letter to me, then my reply 
to you.

No edits (other than formatting and minor spelling corrections).

My rationale for requesting to post this dialogue is several-
fold (grin). The most important reason is that these five 
messages show all my site's Visitors that calm, deliberate, 
serious discussion CAN take place among those desiring the
"truth" of what occurred 11/22/63. I believe the posts show we 
all acted rationally, although we may hold differing views.

Certainly a more pleasant exchange than what I see occur on a 
daily basis in a couple public Internet newsgroups!

Many thanks for your consideration.

Clint Bradford

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. 

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.

Subject: Re: Mantik's Mistakes
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 17:04:00 -0700
From: Clint Bradford 
To: Dr_Mantik@xxxx.xxx

Dr. Mantik,

Thank you very much for your reply to my message posted in the JFK
newsgroups.

Have you asked that Lisa post your reply to the newsgroups that it
appeared? Your reply, I feel, should be seen by all those who might have
read my original post. Or is this for our personal consumption only?

>>Tell me, have we met?

Not yet...but I see you will be attending the JFK/Lancer conference
again this November! I hope to meet you there.

>>In any case, would you be good enough to tell me a little about
>>yourself?

I am 41 years old, and the JFK assassination has always intrigued me. I
ran a BBS - Bulletin Board System (precursor to the modern Internet) for
several years, which focused on my interests: the JFK assassination,
Amateur (Ham) Radio, and telecommunications legal issues.

I wish I remembered the EXACT reason I had the occasion to contact Debra
Conway in October of 1995...it might have had something to do with my
BBS and/or the acquisition of a textfile to post...but before she would
let me hang up the phone, I was committed to going to Dallas the next
month for her JFK/Lancer Conference of 11/95. Before I called her that
afternoon, there was no way I was even THINKING about going to Dallas
that year. But there was something in the way she conducted herself ...
something about her conviction...that made me immediately make air
reservations - and attend the seminars.

She is responsible for a dramatic change in my life - and I will always
admire her for it. That was my first trip to Dallas. (I wrote a brief
article on that trip, still posted at -

http://www.pe.net/~atd/dallascb.htm

I met and talked with Ian Griggs, Hugh Sidey, Mary Ferrell, Ed Hoffmann,
Robert Groden, Patsy Paschall, Bobby Hargis, and many others. My first
walk-though Dealey Plaza was with Debra the evening I arrived - a truly
sobering - and exciting - experience. As I wrote in 1995, Debra was
entirely accurate when she advised me of the "first-timer's phenomenon:"

"TO FIRST-TIME VISITORS TO DEALEY PLAZA: You have just acquired a new
perspective of the site - which makes an incredible amount of difference
when interpreting the data you've gathered and read. You will not sleep
a lot - you will be re-reading."

Since the 1995 Conference, I have created a Web site on the JFK
assassination at

http://www.pe.net/~atd

and offer a couple hundred texts and files relating to the assassination
to all.

I missed the 1996 Conference - but attended last November's sessions. I
was proud of my informal "alliance" with JFK/Lancer, and took
photographs of the event for Debra. I even presented two short LBJ audio
tapes clips for the group, and made transparancies of the five
handwritten pages of "Fritz Notes" that Tom Samoluk of the ARRB brought
to the seminar to show to all.

I purchased a copy of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE at the November JFK/Lancer
sessions. I didn't have a chance to get to it while in Dallas, but I
placed it in my carry-on luggage for the flight home. After viewing
Groden's THE ASSASSINATION FILMS several times, and seeing the same
definite limo slowing right before the final head shot(s), I was
interested in what proof researchers had for "alteration" of
the Zapruder film.

I feel the "best" copies (detailed...clear...next to the original as the
general public can get) are contained on either Lifton's "Research Copy"
videotape, and/or Groden's THE ASSASSINATION FILMS video. Groden offers
over a dozen "treatments/versions" of the Zapruder film - from the
contrasty, virtually worthless Clay Shaw trial-era copy to a copy that
Groden claims is extremely close to the original film. Yet in each and
every one of them, I see very consistent movements...

So when I began reading Jack White's list of points that "prove"
tampering, I almost yelled out, "What is he looking at?" Groden may be a
good photo manipulator, but he's not good enough to alter a dozen
renditions on his video.

So that's where I'm coming from on this particular issue. I do not
believe that Groden is a master manipulator of images, and he offers
over a dozen renditions of the Zapruder film that are all consistent
with each other. And all these renditions demolish almost all "claims of
alteration" included in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE.

>>1. You are correct...Baker was quoting Chaney...it is second hand...
>>...This is an easy matter to revise.

>>2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error.
>>..."[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."

I do not see that as bolstering a claim that the limo "stopped," though.

I sincerely believe that we have to dismiss witness' statements of "the
limo stopped" - as well as "slowed down" - if they were BEHIND the limo
during this sequence. Just leave them out of the "number crunching."
Here's why.

Something dramatic is happening. People sense something's wrong. The
Presidential limo is moving directly AWAY from them. At a downward
angle. And the brake lights come on...

We cannot hold eyewitnesses' testimony to be entirely accurrate in that
situation - the difference of "slowing" and "stopped" in that situation
just might be beyond the depth perception capabilities of humans.

Try looking at vehicles moving down that street away from you and see if
you really believe you can differentiate between, say, 10-11 MPH and 5
MPH. It's a tough task. Even if you ARE looking for it with preconceived
notions. (grin)

>>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?

Sorry. I saw what I thought were obvious errors in basic reporting. I
mis-assumed that they had been brought to your attention earlier. I
believe Dr. Fetzer has read similar critiques from me - and others -
since the book was published.

>>Regarding errata, I am sending a copy of this response to our editor,
>>Jim Fetzer, for possible inclusion on his Web site.

That would be marvelous.

>>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.

Entirely correct. Semantics - but the bottom line is that a reader of
your chapter might not have the capability to look up citations
themselves. They would read your quotation, and believe that that
witness said, "stopped," and "stopped" only.

>>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.

This is where we both disagree. I have over a dozen renditions of the
Zapruder film (mentioned above) that all show the exact "significant
slowing" of the Presidential limo.

>>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.

I met Vince briefly last November. I am sure he would welcome an
invitation to clarify this.

>>5. I agree with your comments about academic credentials.

Since I have not met you, please know that this was not intended to
"slur" you, personally.  I simply feel very frustrated seeing a book
with the word, "science," in its title - but with chapters including
mis-quotations, partial quotations, lack of  basic research...

There's a chapter in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE written by a gentleman who
swears to this day that Greer killed the President. Roy Schaeffer cannot
even identify the heritage of HIS copy of the Zapruder film: "It just
showed up in my mailbox one day..." he told me in a telephone
conversation. From what he told me, his must be a Clay Shaw trial-era
copy - which is so contrasty as to be worthless, when compared to what
we have available today. All that aside, his chapter on the limo's blink
rate fails to offer the most basic of facts: how did you arrive at
the manufacturer's blink rate? How do you know what it was supposed to
be? Schaeffer doesn't offer answers to these questions - he does not
know the answers.

>>6. Finally, you ask about my motives...

Again, I apologize for any personal/professional slur - that was not my
point. My point was to make readers look at citations themselves, and do
a little digging themselves. I am not a paranoid person, but I think
we'd all be better off if we questioned authority a little more often.

>>...I just want to know what happened...I trust that we can henceforth
>>bypass issues of motive. They are usually dead ends.

Agreed.

>>Please feel free to forward any more editorial comments to Jim 
>>Fetzer..

Jim wrote me earlier this year, when I stated that I was befuddled at
what was published in his book, and that I was intending to publish an
article refuting several claims in it. If I remember correctly, he
desired a "first look" at anything I had to publish (a ridiculous
request - I would write to individual authors involved for
comments/input, though).

>>Surely there are more items that need to be revised in a second >>edition
of our book--just keep looking!

I do not believe that Dr. Fetzer, yourself, nor I would desire an "Open
Forum" type of "Errata Page" on Fetzer's site for all-comers to post
anything they desire. But I welcome the "avenue" to get items for an
Errata sheet via Dr. Fetzer. I hope he takes you up on the suggestion,
and offers regular, substantiated Updates to it.

>>As a personal note, however, none of the critiques heretofore received
>>(from anywhere) have affected my view that the Z film was altered...

And healthy, honest debate should be welcomed. I was surprised as anyone
when I - as NEW to this topic as I am -  was able to find "problems"
with some authors' recently published writings.

Again, I sincerely thank you for your reply. I hope to meet you at the
JFK/Lancer November in Dallas 1998 conference.

 - Clint Bradford
   5085 Trail Canyon Drive
   Mira Loma CA  91752-1685
   909-681-6210 - Office
   909-681-6222 - Fax

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. 

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