A review from THE PITTSBURGH POST-GAZETTE (Sunday, 31 May 1998), with a circulation of half a million readers for Sunday editions. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BOOKS SECTION: "Another round of JFK theories" "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out On The Death Of JFK" Edited by James H. Fetzer. Catfeet Press. By Paul Rosenberg Just mention the word "conspiracy," and a chorus of pundits larger than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir will respond, "Oliver Stone!" as if that said it all. Yes, there was the movie "JFK," and then there are books like "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK," edited by James H. Fetzer, a University of Minnesota philosophy professor, author and editor of numerous books on the philosophy of science and related fields. It contains articles by doctors, lawyers and professors, along with researchers who've spent years studying specific aspects of the Kennedy Assassination. This book addresses two major concerns with one eye on the subject, the other on lapses of logic and methodology. First is substantial contradictions in medical evidence, some of which indicates shots fired from in front. This material was gathered in response to articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), which claimed to prove the lone-assassin theory. Fetzer and others critique both the articles and JAMA's high-handed stonewalling of the objections raised, including those of Dr. Charles Crenshaw, a doctor attending President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who eventually sued JAMA for slander. Some early documents from Parkland doctors indicate a head wound inflicted from the front. And David Mantic [sic], who holds a Ph.D. in physics, offers corroborating arguments undermining the credibility of the autopsy pathologists (who had no experience with gunshot victims) with a list of 16 errors or inconsistencies. The second subject is a recent development---questioning the legitimacy of the Zapruder film of the assassination. It's a step even many Warren Commission critics are reluctant to take. Nonetheless, there are numerous eyewitness statements that agree with each other, but not with the film. It's difficult to assess the mass of evidence presented that the film has been altered, but it seems obvious that serious questions have been raised that Warren Report defenders continue to ignore. "Assassination Science" is disturbing for what it reveals about the breakdown of rational discourse, particularly the shoddy reasoning and shabby conduct of powerful Warren Report defenders. The postscript by historian Ronald F. White, which provides a masterful overview of the problems involved, moves well beyond finger-pointing. He focuses on philosophical assump- tions and professional and institutional shortcomings---not least of which is that lawyers, trained to build cases, directed the Warren Commission investigation, establishing a framework fundamentally at odds with scientific inquiry. This isn't an easy book to read, digest or come to terms with. Few questions are answered, many are raised. Given the seriousness of the subject, that's just the way it should be. Paul Rosenberg is a free-lance writer in California [END]