horne rebuts costella with vigor

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Are you now making a psychological diagnosis without a license? You puzzle me, Pat. I know David Mantik extremely well. He is thoroughly competent and I know of none of his findings that has been shown to be mistaken. His chapter on the Zapruder film in MURDER sets the gold standard for discussion of the multiple forms of proof that make a difference to the question of authenticity. His work on the medical evidence is unparalleled. I have no idea why you think you can render a judgment about alleged dementia. How could you possibly know when it began to manifest itself? I have already observed that he is the expert on these matters, not me. I take your remark about being "out of date" as gratuitous and unwarranted. David is the most patient, thorough, and painstaking student of the assassination I have ever met. I would prefer not to address why his work is categorically superior to your own except to say that anyone who takes the Groden color-photos for authentic has missed the boat by a considerable margin. Do you have any background relevant to studies of the medical evidence that are comparable to his? Sorry, but you are not even in the same ballpark.

I've done my best to answer your questions, Pat. I am not the expert on Knudsen. I recommended the chapter by Mantik, who, in my estimation, has put the big picture together. DiEugenio has such antipathy for Lifton that he doesn't appear to understand that the massive documentation by the ARRB has verified Lifton's hypotheses about surgery to the head, the multiple casket entries, and other of his discoveries, including, of course, the alteration of the Zapruder film. What am I supposed to tell you about Josiah? You are using language I did not use, but I concede that his behavior is explainable if you infer as much. For whatever reason, he has been obfuscating and obstructing serious research on JFK for at least the last fifteen years, based on my personal experience. Just look at his interventions on the Judyth thread.

The chapter by Mantik was written before O'Donnell's dementia had become common knowledge, and is therefore out-dated. Any discussion of Knudsen that fails to mention that the only support for his taking pictures came from O'Donnell, who was subsequently proved to be a serial xxxx, is hopelessly flawed. It's like accepting Nixon's claim "I am not a crook" without noting all the reasons we know it isn't true.

Edited April 10, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[William Kelly]

I've done my best to answer your questions, Pat. I am not the expert on Knudsen. I recommended the chapter by Mantik, who, in my estimation, has put the big picture together. DiEugenio has such antipathy for Lifton that he doesn't appear to understand that the massive documentation by the ARRB has verified Lifton's hypotheses about surgery to the head, the multiple casket entries, and other of his discoveries, including, of course, the alteration of the Zapruder film. What am I supposed to tell you about Josiah? You are using language I did not use, but I concede that his behavior is explainable if you infer as much. For whatever reason, he has been obfuscating and obstructing serious research on JFK for at least the last fifteen years, based on my personal experience. Just look at his interventions on the Judyth thread.

The chapter by Mantik was written before O'Donnell's dementia had become common knowledge, and is therefore out-dated. Any discussion of Knudsen that fails to mention that the only support for his taking pictures came from O'Donnell, who was subsequently proved to be a serial xxxx, is hopelessly flawed. It's like accepting Nixon's claim "I am not a crook" without noting all the reasons we know it isn't true.

Agreed Pat,

BUT, Knudsen WAS a White House Photographer, he was there at the autopsy, he did disapear for three days after the assassination, and he did tell his family and publish in a major mainstream magazine that he photographed the autopsy, and no one contradicted his assertions.

And certainly O'Donnell's claims must be questioned, as they have been, but if it wasn't the official autopsy photographer who took those photos we now have, and it wasn't Knudsen, who took them?

BK

[David G. Healy]

Are you now making a psychological diagnosis without a license? You puzzle me, Pat. I know David Mantik extremely well. He is thoroughly competent and I know of none of his findings that has been shown to be mistaken. His chapter on the Zapruder film in MURDER sets the gold standard for discussion of the multiple forms of proof that make a difference to the question of authenticity. His work on the medical evidence is unparalleled. I have no idea why you think you can render a judgment about alleged dementia. How could you possibly know when it began to manifest itself? I have already observed that he is the expert on these matters, not me. I take your remark about being "out of date" as gratuitous and unwarranted. David is the most patient, thorough, and painstaking student of the assassination I have ever met. I would prefer not to address why his work is categorically superior to your own except to say that anyone who takes the Groden color-photos for authentic has missed the boat by a considerable margin. Do you have any background relevant to studies of the medical evidence that are comparable to his? Sorry, but you are not even in the same ballpark.

I've done my best to answer your questions, Pat. I am not the expert on Knudsen. I recommended the chapter by Mantik, who, in my estimation, has put the big picture together. DiEugenio has such antipathy for Lifton that he doesn't appear to understand that the massive documentation by the ARRB has verified Lifton's hypotheses about surgery to the head, the multiple casket entries, and other of his discoveries, including, of course, the alteration of the Zapruder film. What am I supposed to tell you about Josiah? You are using language I did not use, but I concede that his behavior is explainable if you infer as much. For whatever reason, he has been obfuscating and obstructing serious research on JFK for at least the last fifteen years, based on my personal experience. Just look at his interventions on the Judyth thread.

The chapter by Mantik was written before O'Donnell's dementia had become common knowledge, and is therefore out-dated. Any discussion of Knudsen that fails to mention that the only support for his taking pictures came from O'Donnell, who was subsequently proved to be a serial xxxx, is hopelessly flawed. It's like accepting Nixon's claim "I am not a crook" without noting all the reasons we know it isn't true.

bah.... Speer thinks he smells fame and fortune, wants to become the king faruk of case medical evidence.... gotta tell ya, watching this is sometimes better than watching high school mud wrestling....

This isn't selling CD's Pat.... you don't have the right credentials, nor the proper letters after your name! Chill dude!

Edited April 10, 2010 by David G. Healy

[Pat Speer]

Are you now making a psychological diagnosis without a license? You puzzle me, Pat. I know David Mantik extremely well. He is thoroughly competent and I know of none of his findings that has been shown to be mistaken. His chapter on the Zapruder film in MURDER sets the gold standard for discussion of the multiple forms of proof that make a difference to the question of authenticity. His work on the medical evidence is unparalleled. I have no idea why you think you can render a judgment about alleged dementia. How could you possibly know when it began to manifest itself? I have already observed that he is the expert on these matters, not me. I take your remark about being "out of date" as gratuitous and unwarranted. David is the most patient, thorough, and painstaking student of the assassination I have ever met. I would prefer not to address why his work is categorically superior to your own except to say that anyone who takes the Groden color-photos for authentic has missed the boat by a considerable margin. Do you have any background relevant to studies of the medical evidence that are comparable to his? Sorry, but you are not even in the same ballpark.

I've done my best to answer your questions, Pat. I am not the expert on Knudsen. I recommended the chapter by Mantik, who, in my estimation, has put the big picture together. DiEugenio has such antipathy for Lifton that he doesn't appear to understand that the massive documentation by the ARRB has verified Lifton's hypotheses about surgery to the head, the multiple casket entries, and other of his discoveries, including, of course, the alteration of the Zapruder film. What am I supposed to tell you about Josiah? You are using language I did not use, but I concede that his behavior is explainable if you infer as much. For whatever reason, he has been obfuscating and obstructing serious research on JFK for at least the last fifteen years, based on my personal experience. Just look at his interventions on the Judyth thread.

The chapter by Mantik was written before O'Donnell's dementia had become common knowledge, and is therefore out-dated. Any discussion of Knudsen that fails to mention that the only support for his taking pictures came from O'Donnell, who was subsequently proved to be a serial xxxx, is hopelessly flawed. It's like accepting Nixon's claim "I am not a crook" without noting all the reasons we know it isn't true.

bah.... Speer thinks he smells fame and fortune, wants to become the king faruk of case medical evidence.... gotta tell ya, watching this is sometimes better than watching high school mud wrestling....

This isn't selling CD's Pat.... you don't have the right credentials, nor the proper letters after your name! Chill dude!

Mantik is not a forensic radiologist. If I quoted the HSCA radiology consultants who disagreed with Mantik, would it make a difference? Of course not. Why? Because unlike them, he's done some homework.

Well, the same is true for myself and many other researchers, such as Lifton. If we've looked into something, and done the reading--the EXACT same reading a so-called "expert" would need to do to come to an informed decision--why should our insights and comments be dismissed out of hand?

For years now, most LNs and CTs have been hiding behind their chosen experts, e.g. Lattimer, Canning, Guinn, Sturdivan, Baden, Myers, Mantik, Costella. But when one takes a close look at these men and their research, one rapidly finds they are just as prone to error as everybody else and that they just have some letters after their name, which may or may not have anything to do with their findings. For years, as you know, Dr. Chad Zimmerman, a chiropractor, was treated as a medical expert on the McAdams newsgroup. Lattimer was a urologist. You know the drill. Give me someone who's done some reading over someone who has some letters after their name and expects you to genuflect to them, any old day.

As far as Knudsen and O'Donnell. Knudsen told the HSCA he first became aware of the autopsy photos on the morning after the assassination when he developed them. O'Donnell was exposed as a lying fraud. There is therefore no evidence Knudsen took photos outside his claims to his family. Well...my dad was known to lie from time to time... what about yours?