Subject: Posted for Jim Fetzer Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1998 15:34:48 -0500 From: jack white Organization: jfk educational research Newsgroups: startext.jfk Jack, Please post this where it will do the most good. Many thanks. Jim _______________________________________________________________________ David, My experiences with Clint Bradford have been similar. On 08/06/98, he posted the following "review" of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE on amazon.com: Zapruder Film a Fraud? They're Joking . . . Chapter author after chapter author refuse to tell us the exact heritage of what they are analyzing when they claim, "The Zapruder film is a FRAUD!" How "Scientific" is THAT? None of Jack White's listed "Points/Anomalies that Prove Tampering" are evident in the slightest in the National Archives' copy of the Zapruder film. Why? Because he is analyzing a questionable "slide set" instead of analyzing the best available evidence. This book sorely missed being "scientific" in its very un-scientific claims. We all deserve better research and attention to detail than this book offers. Clint Bradford When I discovered this post (a week for so after it had first appeared), I called Bradford to explain that his post was false and misleading. I pointed out that the second paragraph contradicted the first (because it identified the source of research materials), that Jack had identified his source as the Groden slide set on p. 213, and that David Mantik had indi- cated multiple sources on pp. 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 317, and 319, not to mention the summary of sources on p. 265 with which it begins. I also noted that Bradford had never been to the National Archives to view the films, while Mantik had done that and had compared the various copies to one another, a matter that is discussed on pp. 323-328 and summarized on p. 328. After brief discussion, he told me that he would have it removed. After getting off the phone, I emailed amazon.com the following message: The recent post from Clint Bradford (clintbrad4d@earthlink.net) contains false and misleading statements about ASSASSINATION SCIENCE. His first paragraph, wich claims that sources of research on the Zapruder film are not cited in "chapter after chapter", is contradicted by his second paragraph, in which he mentions that Jack White's work is based on a "slide set". I have called Mr. Bradford, with whom I have been in acrimonious debates over the net, and pointed out that Jack White's sources are cited on p. 213 (the Groden slide set) and that David Mantik's chapter includes source after source on pp. 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 317, and 319, not to mention a summary of sources in an "Editor's Note" that I composed myself, which is found on p. 265. Moreover, Mr. Bradford concedes that he has never been into the National Archives to study the film(s) stored there, whereas David Matnik has made multiple trips for this purpose. The fact that there are multiple versions of the film stored there (Secret Service and FBI copies as well as the original) undermines his second paragraph as well. Mr. Bradford has told me that he would contact you to request the remov- al of his post. I am writing to inform you of the situation and to formally request that this post be removed from amazon.com. Mr. Brad- ford's home number is (909) 685-8614, but I expect that he will contact you, perhaps as early as tomorrow, and that this will be amiacably re- solved. Little did I know that Bradford, ever the wiley adversary, would REMOVE his original post and REPLACE IT with an even nastier one of 08/09/98: Zapruder Film a Fraud? I find a great deal of Assassination Science to be un-objective and unSCIENTIFIC. One author's "proof" that the Zapruder film was altered is his list of nine "anomalies" that appear on his Robert Groden slide set. NONE of these "anomalies" appear on the new MPI Home Video release, nor on any of the 12 renditions from several sources of the Zapruder film that Groden himself offers on the video, "The Assassination Films". Yet we are to believe this author's ONE slide set and its alleged "anomalies" to prove tampering. I don't buy it. Another author shouts, "The Zapruder film is tampered!"--yet fails to define the heritage of what he is looking at. (He has promised, though, to clarify his chapter for future printings of this book.) A common theme among a couple chapter authors is that they see Secret Service Greer's head turn around in a super-human manner. In one frame, or 1/18th of a second, they claim. Again, the "proof" of tam- pering is not apparent in many, many copies of the Zapruder film. Greer's one head turn last from Frame 300 to Frame 306--and is VERY natural and fluid, albeit quick. These authors want us to believe, I guess, that if we see any copy of the Zapruder film that shows a natural head turn by Greer, and the Presidential limousine slowing down right before the moment of the final head shot(s), then we must be looking at altered film, because THEIR copies don't show it. And another major chapter author has promised to amend future printing of this book to eliminate his accidental mis-quoting of witnesses and mis-attributed citations. We deserve better. Maybe future printings will be better on this topic. We need to work together and advance the cause of justice for our dead President. -end- There are several problems with this post, of course. The first and most important is that the heritage of various copies of the Zapruder film only became an issue when the authenticity of the film--which had been touted by Robert Groden for decades--came into question, largely because of work by some of these contributors and other students of the film, including Daryll Weatherly, Jack White, Ray Redmon, Chuck Marler, Milicent Cranor, Richard Bartholomew, Harry Livingstone, Daryll Weatherly, Robert Morning- star and others. I thus consider this complaint to be a very cheap shot. 1000 copies of the Groden slide set would not be enough to establish that the film is authentic. (The Groden set may itself have been altered, for example; there should be NO versions of the film that are edited/altered; 1000 copies of the same version of the film is no more persuasive or evi- dentially probative than ONE such version.) Bradford does not have even a feeble grasp of the nature of the relation between evidence and theory. Moreover, he does not understand Noel Twyman's very meticulous and pains- taking research on the Greer head turn. No one who has studied Noel's work should be taken in by Bradford's caricature of his studies. Mathe- matical analysis cannot be refuted by observations by the naked eye, es- pecially when they involve minute phenomena and small intervals of time. That Greer's head motions look "very natural and smooth" to Bradford is virtually no evidence that Twyman is mistaken at all. It is an excellent example of a useless observation, anecdotal and of no significance here. The new MPI Home Video he cites, of course, turns out to have numerous limitations, including that the jiggles originally present have been re- moved and, I suspect, the contrast and the focus within frames has been adjusted to make it easier to view. Michael Parks has recently discover- ed that its frames Z-331 and 332 are reversed and that frames Z-341 and Z-350 are missing entirely. We have to study this enhanced version one frame at a time to make sure that other changes have not been made in the process of producing it. For the time being, it is useless as evidence. When I saw the exchange between Lifton and Bradford, I was glad to see he had decided to remove his attack on Noel's book. Noel has personally in- vested more than $250,000 in producing it. Research of this kind is very time consuming and expensive, as David and I and other contributors to AS- SASSINATION SCIENCE have discovered for ourselves. I have even spent sev- eral grand to establish a non-profit foundation to support assassination research, should the book be successful. We have been solely interested in contributing to the objective and scientific study of the death of JFK. I therefore sent Bradford a note to ask if he had also decided to remove his latest post on ASSASSINATION SCIENCE from amazon.com. He has replied as I complete this message that he is completely satisfied with his post and has no intention of removing it. None of us who brought this book to publication would claim that it is perfect, of course, but such flaws as have been discovered do nothing obvious to diminish its significance. As I pointed out to Bradford in an earlier exchange, he has grossly exagger- ated the importance of the few relatively minor points that he has made. Notice, for example, that his tendency toward exaggeration is apparent in his paragraph on Mantik's chapter (his fifth paragraph), in which he uses plural nouns ("mis-quoting of witnesses" and "mis-attributed citations") when singular nouns would be accurate. So far as I know, there is only a single instance involved here, where David cited Marrion Baker (on page 274) as though Baker were speaking for himself when Baker was paraphras- ing or quoting others. But this is a very small point, especially since Vince Palamara has found numerous others who could be cited in his place. Others may share my wonder at the legacy of Clint Bradford. I have no doubt that his post will discourage sales of this book, which I assume he considers to be a good thing. That his motivation appears to be im- mature and selfish is apparent from the difference in ratings he gave to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, originally two stars with his first post, but now one star with his revised post. ONE STAR! If he gives only one star to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, what would he give to CASE CLOSED or THE WARREN REPORT itself? His posts are rubbish and deserve to be seen for what they are: the juvenile ravings of a spoiled child who craves attention. It is a bitter irony that he closes his post with a minor revision of a sentence that I recall having sent to him some time ago, namely: "We need to work together to advance the cause of justice for Jack Kennedy". In this way, Bradford figuratively spits in the face of every serious student of this case. His unprofessional behavior is beneath contempt. James H. Fetzer McKnight Professor University of Minnesota Duluth, MN 55812 jfetzer@d.umn.edu