Debra Conway has forwarded a commentary on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE by someone identified as "Howard P.", who claims to have a Ph.D. in philosophy. After reviewing what he has had to say, I can assert with a high degree of confidence that Howard P. may have studied philosophy but he obviously mastered very little. This review is a transparent hatchet job that is intended to discredit the work without actually discussing its contents, the nature of the argu- ments it presents or the character of its evidence. No one would know from this commentary, for example, that the researchers whose work is reported here include a world authority on the human brain who is also an expert on wound ballistics, a Ph.D. in physics who is also an M.D. and board certified in ratiation oncology, an ex- pert on photographic evidence who assisted the HSCA during its re- investigation of the case and later advised Oliver Stone in the preparation of the film "JFK", a physician who assisted in treating JFK at Parkland and three days later his accused assassin, or a former Marine Corps officer who is also a professor of philosophy and an expert on critical thinking and on scientific reasoning. No one would know from this commentary that the book is divided into four sections, that the first concerns the medical evidence in this case and how it has been distorted by the JOURNAL OF THE AMA, that the second reports the content of a national press con- ference during which important findings concerning the medical evi- dence in this case--including the fabrication of autopsy X-rays of JFK, the falsification of the "magic bullet" theory, the substitu- tion of diagrams and photographs of the brain of someone else for that of JFK--were presented (none of which was reported to the Am- erican people by our national press), that the third publishes my correspondence with the Department of Justice in (what turned out to be) a futile attempt to convince it that a reopening of the case was warranted by new evidence, or that the fourth part pres- ents a series of studies of the Zapruder film, which "prove" (in various senses that I explain) that the film has been massively edited using highly sophisticated techniques, apparently by the CIA, which had the film in its possession already Frdiay night. Not only does this "review" not begin to describe the chapters of the book or the qualifications of the individuals who con- tribute to it but commits several common informal fallacies in the process. The claim that David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., is not an expert on the film ignores the vast amount of research that he has devoted to the film. He may not have majored in cinema- tic techniques in a program on film production, but I have no doubt that, at this point in time, he is the world's leading expert on the Zapruder film. Moreover, to fault his research on the ground that he does not carry the title "film expert" is to commit the genetic fallacy. His blatant ad hominem at- tacks upon me take matters out of context. Most obviously, he judges a book by its cover, even faulting the appearance of a photograph of the editor on the back! If there could be a more superficial criticism, I cannot imagine what it is. Indeed, although you would not know it from listening to this reviewer, there are comments that appear on the jacket from four different individuals, whose comments are as follows: "ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is a watershed. Past and future assassination studies will have to be read through the painstakingly logical lens with which it scrutinizes the murder of John Kennedy. The contributors collectively offer an exhaustively documented and tightly reasoned argument bound to give the most loyal defender of the Warren Commissioners or Gerald Posner pause for thought. There is no sentimentalism or sensationalism here, even though the web of bureaucratic roadblocks and deceit encountered by Fetzer in his investigations would make for an exciting thriller. Instead, the cool clinical breeze of rigorous thinking blows throughout." --KERRY WALTERS Distinguished Professor, Gettysburg College "ASSASSINATION SCIENCE--particularly Dr. David Mantik's chapter on the Zapruder film--constitutes a significant addition to me literature on the JFK assassination. Those who believe that the Zapruder film (characterized by some as the closest thing to 'absolute truth' when it comes to the shooting) is unimpeachable are in for a surprise. In addition, the publication of certain documents (such as the full text of the Dallas doctors' 11/22/63 press con- ference) as well as Fetzer's musings about what is knowable and the record of his jousting with the establishment (from THE NEW YORK TIMES to the Justice Department) make for in- teresting reading. --DAVID LIFTON Author of BEST EVIDENCE "Although certain to provoke further controversy, this book supplies important scientific assessments of the medical evidence laid before the Warren Commission, to- gether with a valuable narrative account of the American Medical Association's entry into this contentious field. I was particularly gripped by compelling new arguments that the Zapruder film had been altered, along with related documentation concerning the Warren Commission's re-enactment of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. --PETER DALE SCOTT Author of DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK "Every serious student of the Kennedy assassination should read this excellent compilation of articles, which dissect and destroy the Warren Commission Re- port in a meticulous, objective, and analytical man- ner. The authors are all accomplished professionals, and their investigative studies unquestionably shift the evidentiary burden to those who through ignorance, naivete, or conscious pro-government bias continue to defend the Warren Commission Report, the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." --CYRIL H. WECHT, M.D., J.D. Past President, American Academy of Forensic Sciences Now if anyone wants to judge this book by its cover, then they may want to consider the comments of Kerry Walters, David S. Lifton, Peter Dale Scott, and Cyril H. Wecht which appear there. They may also want to consider why the remarks that have now been advanced by "Howard P." appear to diverge so drastically from their appraisals. Better yet, why not get a copy of the book and read it for yourself to see whether this reviewer has given it a fair shake? It should not be very difficult to tell. I am asking Debra Conway to post this reply on my behalf. James H. Fetzer McKnight University Professor University of Minnesota Duluth, MN 55812
![]() |
![]() |