David Mantik And John McAdams

[David Von Pein]

http://www.box.com/s/a4121ab5b70c70829a2f

In Dr. David Mantik's pre-recorded appearance for the 3/22/12 "Black
Op Radio" program (linked above), Mantik devoted the whole program to
attacking John McAdams' 2011 book "JFK Assassination Logic: How To
Think About Claims Of Conspiracy".

Naturally, since Dr. Mantik is a devoted conspiracy theorist when it
comes to the topic of President Kennedy's assassination, it's no
surprise that he can find no worthwhile or redeeming features in
Professor McAdams' book whatsoever. So that's no real shocker.

I jotted down a few notes while listening to Dr. Mantik, and here are
a few observations that I think should be made:

1.) Mantik's comparison between McAdams' hypothetical 20 conspirators
in the JFK case and the real-life 19 conspirators who hijacked the
four jetliners that were used as flying bombs on 9/11 is not a valid
comparison at all.

McAdams' hypothetical example involving "20 conspirators" in the
Kennedy case was obviously referring to the likelihood of any of those
20 plotters spilling the beans AFTER the assassination had taken
place.

Whereas in the 9/11 instance, it's quite obvious to everybody on the
planet (except perhaps James Fetzer) that the 19 hijackers had no
intention or desire to "hide" their conspiracy from the world after
the four planes struck their targets in Washington and New York.

Since there were FOUR planes being used as terrorist bombs on 9/11,
does Dr. Mantik think that the hijackers themselves could have kept
their plot secret from the world after the planes reached their
targets (even though each hijacker would be silenced for all time when
they each died in their respective crashes)?

Mantik's "9/11 vs. JFK" comparison is simply laughable.


2.) Mantik berates McAdams for supposedly ignoring all of the so-
called "new" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case that has surfaced
since the Warren Report came out in 1964.

But I want to know what "new" physical evidence Dr. Mantik or any CTer
has unearthed since '64 that would undermine the conclusion that
Oswald acted alone? I have yet to see any hard, physical evidence that
would prove the Warren Commission got it wrong.

And the reason we haven't seen any such "conspiracy" evidence (of a
physical nature) is because no such evidence exists--and it never did.
It didn't exist at the time of the Warren Commission's investigation
and it doesn't exist now.

All Dr. Mantik has are his suspicions and his theories about
conspiracy. But in the final analysis, the physical evidence hangs Lee
Harvey Oswald. That evidence proved Oswald was guilty of killing JFK
and Tippit in 1963; and that same evidence proves he was guilty
today.

The evidence against Oswald hasn't suddenly VANISHED in the
intervening 49 years, even though many conspiracy theorists seem to
believe there's no hard evidence against their prized patsy
whatsoever--in EITHER the JFK case or the Tippit case.

So if somebody wants to say that I, too, am "stuck in the 1960s"
regarding my views on this case, I don't really mind. Because being
stuck in the 1960s when it comes to the JFK assassination is being
stuck in the place where all the real evidence is.

[John McAdams]

On 22 Mar 2012 11:51:15 -0400, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

Well . . . the actual solid science that has been done since the 60s
had supported the lone assassin position.

For example:

Authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays
Authentication of the Backyard Photos
Fackler's and Lattimer's ballistics experiments
Scalice's work on the fingerprints on the rifle
Trajectory analysis of the SBT
HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel

And so on.

But Mantik dismisses all these folks as liars and stooges.

Instead, he hues to the Jack White School of Photo Analysis, and the
Robert Groden school of analysis of photos and x-rays.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Pamela Brown]

On Mar 22, 11:25 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2012 11:51:15 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

Nothing like a little righteous indignation!

[Pamela Brown]

Let me help you.

McAdams seems to operate from a false axiom; namely, that the WCR is
*true* and should be *believed*. In order to do that, one has to
operate from a very narrow perspective and steadfastly refuse to place
the WCR in historical context.

Some are able to perceive that, and some are not.

Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com

[Ace Kefford]

On Mar 22, 12:25 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2012 11:51:15 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

John,

This is a key point missed by many who have continued to cling to certain
conspiracy claims.

Many of the doubts about the physical evidence raised by the first
generation and second generation critics were addressed by the HSCA and
shown not to be evidence of conspiracy but instead to support Oswald as
the lone assassin. As you note, the only way out for these diehard
"theorists" is to argue that the evidence has been fabricated and/or that
the experts are corrupt, stooges, fools or the like. The HSCA was created
by those who believed in a conspiracy (although of course we get some
revisionists arguing now that it was all a trick).

And since the HSCA there has been additional work by independent
researchers proving further that Oswald was the lone assassin.

The evidence has come together, and it has come together to establish
Oswald's guilt.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

That interview, as you might expect, was difficult for me to listen to.
While I, too, was disappointed with John's book, for many of the same
reasons as Mantik, the second half of the interview was pretty much a
review of Mantik's theories, many of which are pretty silly, IMO.

[Anthony Marsh]

Actually . . . the solid science that has been done since the 60s
supports the conspiracy conclusion.

Authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays
Authentication of the Backyard Photos

Authentication of the Zapruder film

Fackler's and Lattimer's ballistics experiments

The acoustical evidence

[John McAdams]

On 22 Mar 2012 15:13:29 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yet another post from Pamela with no content.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

>>> "The actual solid science that has been done since the 60s had

supported the lone assassin position." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Precisely. And a very good point.

Which means, of course, that a person "stuck in the 1960s" would be a
person who is stuck with the original evidence of Oswald's guilt which
has, as you mentioned, been authenticated and buttressed in multiple ways
since the '60s....making it much MORE likely (not less likely) that Lee
Oswald shot and killed JFK.

Amazingly, though, many CTers think just the opposite is true -- i.e., the
MORE corroboration and authentication of Oswald's guilt that comes down
the pike (via Lattimer, Sturdivan, the HSCA, the Clark Panel, Dale Myers'
animation work, FAA, etc.), the MORE innocent Lee Harvey Oswald becomes.
That's just plain bizarre in my view.

In a conspiracy theorist's world, this formula seems to apply to the JFK
case:

"CORROBORATION AND AUTHENTICATION OF A LONE-ASSASSIN SCENARIO" equals
"MORE REASONS TO BELIEVE OSWALD IS INNOCENT".

That's a strange policy to live by. But it would seem as though many
conspiracists have, indeed, adopted the above policy.

http://kennedy-and-lincoln.blogspot.com

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/intro.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

[Pamela Brown]

On Mar 22, 9:28 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2012 15:13:29 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>

McAdams really has to quit making my point for me.

[John McAdams]

On 23 Mar 2012 22:52:51 -0400, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thank you for making my point for me.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Actually . . . the solid science that has been done since the 60s
> supports the conspiracy conclusion.
>
> Authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays
> Authentication of the Backyard Photos
> Authentication of the Zapruder film
> Fackler's and Lattimer's ballistics experiments
> The acoustical evidence
> HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel

If true, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now would we? Based
on the new information, the current Administration would be hot on the
trail of the assassins who murdered this popular President who belonged to
the same political party. Unless they are now part of the cover-up too.
Guess they must be based on your way of thinking.

[Anthony Marsh]

Can you explain why this current administration felt that it was so
vital to our National Security to keep documents from WWI Top Secret
even though they had been published in a children's magazine in 1921?

[claviger]

No I can't but I'm fascinated by this revelation. Cite please.

[claviger]

On Mar 22, 11:25 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2012 11:51:15 -0400, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

Sounds symptomatic of post conspiracy depression caused by theory
rejection. Should we call it a Mantik-Depressive Syndrome?

[Anthony Marsh]

CIA Declassifies World War I-Era Documents

KIMBERLY DOZIER 04/19/11 10:28 PM ET AP
React
Important
Fascinating
Typical
Scary
Outrageous
Amazing
Infuriating
Beautiful
Read more
CIA World War I , CIA Declassifies Documents , World War 1 Documents ,
World War I , World War One , World War One Documents , Cia , Invisible
Ink , World News
share this story
64
235
29
Get World Alerts
Sign Up
Submit this story

WASHINGTON — The CIA lifted the lid on one corner of the cloak and
dagger world of World War I, declassifying six of the oldest secret
documents in the U.S. government archives, the agency announced Tuesday.

The documents show top techniques used by spies, generals and diplomats
to send secret messages in a diplomatic war that raged long after the
guns stopped. The records reveal how invisible ink was used to send word
between allies, and spies learned to open letters to read each other's
secrets without leaving a trace.

One document suggests this method for passing secret messages: soaking a
handkerchief or collar in a mixture of nitrate, soda and starch, then
drying the fabric. The chemicals come out when the cloth is placed in
water. The liquid becomes invisible ink, that can be loaded into a pen
and used to write a message. The recipient develops the writing by
applying a second chemical, iodate of potassium.

There's even a document written in French of the German's secret ink
formula, showing the French had cracked the enemy's code.

"These documents remained classified for nearly a century until recent
advancements in technology made it possible to release them," CIA
Director Leon E. Panetta said in a statement Tuesday.

Recent advances in the chemistry of secret ink, and the lighting methods
used to detect it have made the secrets revealed Tuesday obsolete,
explained CIA spokesperson Marie E. Harf.

Documents on secret writing fall under the CIA's authority to
declassify. The agency declassified more than a million historical
documents last year alone, the agency said.

But the CIA was not always so eager to share these particular secrets,
according to Steve Aftergood, of the Federation for American Scientists.
He says the CIA resisted a Freedom of Information Act request in 2002 to
release the records.

Nor was he impressed at Panetta's statement that the documents could be
released now because of new technological advances.

"Invisible ink was rendered obsolete by digital encryption long ago, not
in the last few years," Aftergood said.

"Director Panetta is attempting to rationalize the CIA's irrational
information policies, but there is no known basis for his claim."

The documents are now available on the agency's website at the site's
Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room.

Scholars will also be able to examine them at the National Archives.

___

Online:

http://www.cia.gov

Why are you so uninformed? Is it to maintain your fiction that you are a
WC defender?

[Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)]

> WC defender?- Hide quoted text -

>

You originally said:

"Can you explain why this current administration felt that it was so vital
to our National Security to keep documents from WWI Top Secret even though
they had been published in a children's magazine in 1921?"

I see nothing about these methods being published in a children's magazine
in the cited article.

[Anthony Marsh]

>> WASHINGTON ? The CIA lifted the lid on one corner of the cloak and

Well, then you should have asked about that specific point. Thanks for
spotting that typo. It was 1931, not 1921. It was not a national story so
you might not be able to find it online. It was published only in The
Boston Globe and was a special profile of the archivist who got the
documents declassified.

?There is something like 2,500 separate classification guides in operation
now in the US government,?? Ferriero said. ?What?s secret in one agency
may not be secret in another.??

He recently won a symbolic victory when the CIA relented after years of
denying researchers? requests for six ?secret?? formulas for invisible
ink, a tool of American spy craft during World War I.

?The reason they caved was because the National Declassification Center
staff discovered that the formulas had actually been published in 1931,??
Ferriero recounts with a hint of exasperation. ?The way they found them?
Google Books.??

[Pamela Brown]

That position only works if you keep your blinders firmly in place and
refuse to place the WCR in an historical context.