Wednesday, August 22, 2012

David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.

MARY'S MOSAIC, the JFK X-rays and more


  1. Dr. Fetzer you guys really piss me off sometimes. Who are the "guys"? DiEugenio, and you!
    What in the hell am I suppose to believe when you 2 guys are acting like little brats?
    I think so highly of both of you, I'm shocked to hear your words today about Jim D.
    Boy were you upset, that I understand.
    Have DiEugenio on your show! Dammit Jim, you guys are the best! I want to hear you guys discuss Janey's book together.
    This god-dam bullshit in-fighting in the JFK community has got to end.
    You guys are not islands. You are all in the same G-D boat and it's sinking. You are all fighting about this and that, instead you all should be using buckets to help each other.
    DiEugenio won't embrace Dr. Costello's work. That I can't believe.
    How anybody can watch your 2003 seminar in Duluth and not see how the film is altered, is beyone me, of course I'm a nobody. This Janey book, and the stuff about or from Leary is head-scratching to say the least. DiEugenio's review of the Janey book is powerfull. Your response on this show was lacking, by your own standards. I want to hear why you support it, and I want DiEugenio to be there.
    All of you guy's are almost like the MSM. The difference is, your topics are taboo. But your styles are corrupt. You guys seem to present what you think is the correct version of the events, and shy away from the rest. Like Osanic, and DiEugenio with the film.
    Your belief in the Billy Sol Estes story is weird, to me mind you. He was a con artist.
    Barr Mclleland is the same. DiEugenio has explained how both are con artist, and it's quite a compelling arguement. Yet you seem to believe both stories. I just know you can't be wrong, but DiEugenio seems to also be correct.
    I have no idea who's right in any of this.
    But if you guys get together and discuss it, I will be able to understand better.
    Can you see how this is maddening?
    2 great people, who refuse to talk to each other and just continue to present their facts as if the other doesn't exist.
    My mother always told me, "You don't have to prove someone wrong for you to be right".
    Who are you trying to reach with your shows?
    Are you trying to support your research, or are you trying to inform?
    Let me have the information, I can decide for myself.
    DiEugenio, Ace Baker, Wood, Lear, Seamus Coogan, Groden, Costello, and many more!

    It's hard to listen to all of you separately and try to put it all together.

  2. I find it amazing that guests you have on your show like Jim Dieugenio and Judy Wood and they later turn on you. I've seen you have a stoush with Jim D on the Education forum. You are poles apart on Judyth Vary Baker and Madeleine Brown. While Jim D is unquestionably well steeped in JFK he does give out a condascending vibe to theories he doesn't subscribe to.

  3. The Oswald Innocence Project, Peter Janney's book, MARY'S MOSAIC, and the fabrication of the Zapruder film are litmus tests for JFK research integrity. In each case, the evidence is overwhelming. They therefore serve to discriminate between those who are after the truth and those who have another agenda. Consider the failure to come to grips with the evidence in each of these cases as "one strike!" The analogy holds here.

  4. I will think about having DiEugenio on, however, if he would be willing.

    1. It seems to me that Jim DiEugenio is single-handedly ( or maybe he's being helped ) trying to demolish the CT case from the inside. Impossible, of course but that won't stop Jim DiEugenio trying. First he rubbishes Phillip F. Nelson's book on LBJ and (it seems) all other "LBJ did it" books. Then he rubbishes Madeleine Brown. DiEugenio says Billie Sol Estes was a con man (which he undoubtedly was). But what has that got to do with LBJ who probably knew Billie Sol Estes was a con man??!! Does the fact that Billie Sol Estes was a con man preclude him from - on occasions - telling the truth about LBJ? Even con men can be make good witnesses. And for good measure Barr McClellan was a con man.(?) The Altgens 6 photo seems to be Jim DiEugenio's lastest target. I've done some photographic analysis on the Altgens 6 photo over the years and one thing sticks out a mile: the guy or Doorway Man is not and cannot be Billy Lovelady.

      I find Jim DiEugenio's activities over the last few months highly suspect coming as they (his activities) do, almost one year exactly before the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.

    2. Excellent post, Tom! I agree with you up and down the line.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. I am not at all well researched on JFK and perhaps am completely missing a point somewhere but in terms of the Altgens 6 'obfuscation' wouldn't it have made more sense to obfuscate Oswald's face rather than Doorman?

  7. That was my first inference, as I stated in "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then". But Ralph Cinque pointed out to me that, unless Billy Lovelady was wearing Lee's clothing, the man in the doorway was Oswald--and he was right! The man whose face was obfuscated appears to have been Bill Shelley, whose presence--given Lee had reported being "out with Bill Shelley in front"-- might have generated too much interest. See my five articles on this by going to "Veterans Today, Jim Fetzer" and search "The Oswald Innocence Project". You will be surprised how complex were the moves they made to cover this up.

  8. In the truth movement there's almost a worship of JFK. But these are facts aren't they?:

    He came out of an organized crime family
    He only won the election due to mob fixing in Chicago
    In office he and his brother went after mob rivals

    Ordinarily I'd expect the truth movement to hate on Kenney for these facts.

    And Mary Pinchot Myer:

    She was a one-world order nutcasefeeding drugs and propaganda about that goal t the president during their illicit liaiason ... and she's the Good Guy?

    It seem like the truth movement on these issues is just a little too swept up in the glorious myth of Camelot that the mainstream media has so carefully cultivated these decades past ... no critica thinking.

    That patsy was unbelievably perfect. A married woman affair who was at first reluctant to confirm his alibi ... falls asleep at the scene drunk ... falls into the river and loses his clothing! If we told our teacher we'd fallen asleep at the riverbnk nd ten falen int the river and lost our homework and that we had a witness butshe culdn't come forward for fear of reprisals ... our teacher would know we were lying.

    Is it possible that this guy really was guilty - or else was hypnotisd or mind-controlled into being absolutely the most perfectly set-up self-incrimining pats ever?

  9. This comment has been removed by the author.

  10. Yes, people are a little too soft on the Kennedy bros.

    In his recent article co-authored with Susan Lindauer Jim Fetzer says the way USG treated Lindauer, trying to have her declared insane and locked away when she said things it didn't like, was fascist.

    Well, that's precisely what the Kennedy bros tried to do with General Walker but Fetzer kisses those boys' fascist asses constantly.

    Basically the difference is TV told Fetzer the Kennedys were good and liberal, while TV told Fetzer that G W Bush was bad and far-right. He's straightened out somewhat on some issues but generally he's pretty damn well indoctrinated.

  11. I'm much more a passionate defender of Dr. Fetzer than a harsh critic, since I so admire his prodigious intellect, his steel-trap memory for details, his fearlessness to investigate forbidden subjects, and his willingness (sometimes) to admit he's been following a wrong path, then graciously swallow his pride and resolutely try a different one. There are far too few high-profile conspiracy researchers who, IMHO, can match the standards set by Jim.

    But he DOES have his blind spots and fits of irrationality/gullibility too. And they can be downright maddening to his admirers, as perhaps illustrated above in this comment thread.

    The disturbingly sentimental, verging on queasy, peace-and-love spin given by Peter Janney to the known facts, shared speculations, and Leary-supplied acid dreams which underpin the deservedly questionable narrative of "Mary's Mosaic" is certainly a case (among several) in point.

    Seriously considering ANY Leary-endorsed/supplied "legend" should be ample cause for a fresh re-examining of the credibility and possible intel-sponsorship/control of the Psychedelic Pied Piper himself. As a purgative/corrective to Leary's self-embroidered historical record (and thus its crucial impact on the Janney narrative) I strongly suggest Dr. Fetzer seek out the latter-day writings of the one-time close friend and confidant of Dr. Leary, Walter Bowart. If that name does not instantly ring a distant, hypnotic bell, take note that Bowart was the crusading editor of "The East Village Other" and courageous author of the (genuinely suppressed by Langley) ESSENTIAL study of covert, Manchurian-style craziness, "Operation Mind Control".