In order to by slanderous, a claim must not only be negative against a person, it must also be false.
Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik did claim to discover two Hoaxes, which, if true, would be the two greatest hoaxes of the twentieth century. Technically, my statement is true.
This is like trying to get a teenager to admit he lied, or that he horribly misspoke. You said that Mantik and Frazier discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film "are
both hoaxes." That is what you said.
Dr. Fetzer and Dr. Mantik did claim to discover the Zapruder film hoax. And Dr. Fetzer, working on his own, claimed to discover that the Holocaust was a hoax. But of course, in my very next statement, I made it clear that Dr. Mantik was not involved in both of these ‘discoveries’.
Uh, no, that is not what you said: You said "some" of "these great discoveries" were Fetzer's. To refresh your memory: "Yes, Yes, I know. I can’t give Dr. Mantik all the credit for these great discoveries. Some of them were Fetzer’s."
There is not a single member on this forum, I warrant, who is unaware of Dr. Fetzer Holocaust denial, or Dr. Mantik’s involvement with the Zapruder film hoax claim. So, it was clear that when I said Mantik did not get credit for these discoveries, it was clearly I was referring to the Holocaust hoax claim that he was not involved with, and not saying he had no involvement with the Zapruder film hoax claim.
Let's read what you said again:
The “Experts” this book refers to are world renown experts like Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik who have discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes.
So when you went on to say that Dr. Mantik was not responsible for "some" of "these discoveries," it was by no means clear that you were trying to contradict your previous statement that he and Fetzer "discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film are both hoaxes." "Both" implies "two," but your next sentence referred to "some" and "these discoveries."
This would be a whole lot easier if you would just admit that you horribly misspoke.
I no more meant to say Dr. Mantik was a Holocaust denier than to say that he believed the movie “The Wizard of Oz” portrayed real events, and everyone knows that.
I hate to hold you to the actual meaning of words, but when you say you did not "mean" to say Dr. Mantik discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film "are both hoaxes," you are admitting that you said it; but you just said that you did not say it. Just now, you adamantly said that you "clearly" did
not say that Dr. Mantik, along with Dr. Fetzer, discovered that the Holocaust and the Zapruder film "are both hoaxes." But you did say that. That is exactly what you said.
However, I do acknowledge that you are now saying that you did not mean to accuse Dr. Mantik of denying the Holocaust. That's all you had to say in your first reply, instead of trying to parse words and weasel-word your way out of admitting that you simply and horribly misspoke.
I am guessing that you simply assumed that since Fetzer has denied the Holocaust, that Mantik has done so as well.
FYI, I don't think that anybody in the research community had any idea that Fetzer denied the Holocaust until 2014 when he wrote the foreword to Kollerstrom's Holocaust-denial book
Breaking the Spell. I had many dealings with Fetzer when he first became active on the JFK case. He recruited me to be among his team of researchers (I declined due to time restraints), and he put links to several of my articles on his website. As far as I can tell, Fetzer's Holocaust denialism came some years after he got involved in the JFK case. If he held this view before then, I never saw a hint of it, and I know Dr. Mantik and several others did not either.
I take you at your word that you did not mean to accuse Dr. Mantik of denying the Holocaust, and I will relay this to Dr. Mantik. Although we disagree strongly on the JFK case, you don't strike me as the kind of person who would knowingly falsely accuse someone of something so serious as Holocaust denialism.