Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Cliff Varnell]

According to Witt:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area [on the north side of Elm Street], somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down. . . . [when the motorcade approached] I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street. . . . Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me . . . My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella’s being open.

Based on the available photographs made that day, none of Witt’s statements were an accurate account of the actions of the “umbrella man” who stood waiting for the motorcade with his umbrella in the normal over-the-head position and then pumped it in the air as Kennedy passed.

Rosemary redux:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots.

Since Witt was focused on his umbrella why should it surprise us that he was still focused on handling the umbrella even after it was in a "normal over-the-head position"?

Yeah, there are eccentric people in the world who will make these exciting connections in their minds and grab an umbrella and go heckle the President over something that happened 25 years earlier, or walk by a Fox News van that may or may not have contained people and shout out 45 year old Bob Dylan lyrics.

The shame of it is that the HSCA used Witt to pooh-pooh blood soluble flechette weaponry even though the autopsy doctors considered such a scenario quite possible. The shame of it is that so many people are eager to hang Witt when it should be apparent to students of the era that if the CIA and Special Forces tested this technology it must have caught the attention of one Mitchell WerBell the 3rd.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2359

Why aren't we talking about WerBell, instead of Witt?

Well done obfuscation by the HSCA!

Edited November 28, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

It's not an Antenna, it's a blur streak.

The "Antenna" blur streak is actually one of three blur streaks on the clothing of the man, photographer Tom Craven, running behind DCM.

1 is far lighter than 2 or 3.

The antenna makes its appearance in other photos of DCM, no?

[Cliff Varnell]

The antenna makes its appearance in other photos of DCM, no?

"It" doesn't make any other appearances, Cliff.

Your certainty is breathtaking.

In post #173, the lower left photo.

[Greg Parker]

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

What I find astounding is that Tink says he believes Witt simply because his story is so outlandish, it has to be true.

That's no basis on its own to believe anything - imho.

[Pat Speer]

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

What I find astounding is that Tink says he believes Witt simply because his story is so outlandish, it has to be true.

That's no basis on its own to believe anything - imho.

I agree that that is no basis upon which to come to conclusions. I suspect, however, that Tink was merely being playful. I've heard dozens of people say similar things--that truth is stranger than fiction, etc--and didn't take that to mean they honestly believe it's ALWAYS stranger than fiction.

[Greg Parker]

FWIW, I did a wee bit of digging this morning to see if there's anything I'd missed re Umbrella Man. This immediately popped up. According to this article by Jerry Organ, Witt was not pulled from nowhere and propped up by Blakey as Umbrella Man, but outed by Penn Jones...

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

If this was indeed the case, then Jones would have to have been duped into outing Witt and IDing him as the Umbrella Man. Does anyone here believe this? Really?

Jones' heart was in the right place. But from where I sit, it's obvious he was REPEATEDLY duped.

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I did a wee bit of digging this morning to see if there's anything I'd missed re Umbrella Man. This immediately popped up. According to this article by Jerry Organ, Witt was not pulled from nowhere and propped up by Blakey as Umbrella Man, but outed by Penn Jones...

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

If this was indeed the case, then Jones would have to have been duped into outing Witt and IDing him as the Umbrella Man. Does anyone here believe this? Really?

Jerry Organ? The seeker of truth?

Von Pein is more open minded than that guy.

That Witt was outed by Jones and Marrs is confirmed by Marrs in Fetzer's post. This happened, evidently, months after the HSCA published a picture of Umbrella Man and asked him to come forward. If Blakey, or anyone, for that matter, had conspired to push a fake Umbrella Man on the public, it only makes sense that they would have done so at that time. If they were in the business of pushing fakes on the public, moreover, it only makes sense to assume they'd have pushed a fake Mexico City Mystery Man as well. Umbrella Man, after all, was merely a topic of discussion among buffs. The Mexico City Mystery Man, on the other hand, had been the topic of a best-seller.

[Greg Parker]

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

What I find astounding is that Tink says he believes Witt simply because his story is so outlandish, it has to be true.

That's no basis on its own to believe anything - imho.

I agree that that is no basis upon which to come to conclusions. I suspect, however, that Tink was merely being playful. I've heard dozens of people say similar things--that truth is stranger than fiction, etc--and didn't take that to mean they honestly believe it's ALWAYS stranger than fiction.

Pat,

The SOLE basis put forward for that proposition was the "weirdness" of Witt's story. I mean. either this was a "light-hearted" or piece or one designed to lay to rest any doubt about UM's identity. Which was it?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Go to the article in The New York Times and listen to what Tink says. There is nothing "playful" about it and

his sarcasm is directed at anyone who believes in conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK! Listen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html

It seems to me Pat Speer not only misses the boat in this case but he is not even anywhere close to the water.

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

What I find astounding is that Tink says he believes Witt simply because his story is so outlandish, it has to be true.

That's no basis on its own to believe anything - imho.

I agree that that is no basis upon which to come to conclusions. I suspect, however, that Tink was merely being playful. I've heard dozens of people say similar things--that truth is stranger than fiction, etc--and didn't take that to mean they honestly believe it's ALWAYS stranger than fiction.

Pat,

The SOLE basis put forward for that proposition was the "weirdness" of Witt's story. I mean. either this was a "light-hearted" or piece or one designed to lay to rest any doubt about UM's identity. Which was it?

[Pat Speer]

FWIW, I did a wee bit of digging this morning to see if there's anything I'd missed re Umbrella Man. This immediately popped up. According to this article by Jerry Organ, Witt was not pulled from nowhere and propped up by Blakey as Umbrella Man, but outed by Penn Jones...

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

If this was indeed the case, then Jones would have to have been duped into outing Witt and IDing him as the Umbrella Man. Does anyone here believe this? Really?

Jerry Organ? The seeker of truth?

Von Pein is more open minded than that guy.

That Witt was outed by Jones and Marrs is confirmed by Marrs in Fetzer's post. This happened, evidently, months after the HSCA published a picture of Umbrella Man and asked him to come forward. If Blakey, or anyone, for that matter, had conspired to push a fake Umbrella Man on the public, it only makes sense that they would have done so at that time. If they were in the business of pushing fakes on the public, moreover, it only makes sense to assume they'd have pushed a fake Mexico City Mystery Man as well. Umbrella Man, after all, was merely a topic of discussion among buffs. The Mexico City Mystery Man, on the other hand, had been the topic of a best-seller.

Pat,

This thing can be argued round in circles until we all fall over.

As far as I 'm concerned this guy was probably 20 feet from JFK when he was hit. He's pumping an umbrella in the air at the moment JFK rides past and the shots begin. He then disappeared for 15 years.

As pointed out by Bernice he was 8 years old when the event he was allegedly protesting occurred.

The photographic record is inconclusive for anyone to say it was definitely him. So all we have is Witt's story and a pile of assumptions that every man and his dog is throwing into the mix.

I'm not really buying into anyone's arguments regarding the HSCA and their possible motives for wheeling this guy out. The Mexico City man is a different kettle of fish in my opinion. Blakey wanted the Mexico City stuff to go away more than the Warren Comission did.

I can't say this is an unimportant sideshow because TUM might not be unimportant. He might not be Witt and if he's not, then what does that mean? In an unsolved case like this why would any of us throw something like this in the trash?

I think dismissing him is equally as stupid as saying he was definitely an assassin.

FWIW, Witt claimed he found out about the significance of the Umbrella from someone else.

Mr. FAUNTROY. All right. Now, when you left--let's assume that it was at work. When you left for lunch, is it your testimony that it was your intent to utilize the umbrella to heckle the President?

Mr. WITT. Yes; that is true. That was the only reason I was carrying it.

Mr. FAUNTROY. So that you weren't just going for a walk at lunch?

Mr. WITT. Well, I did go out for a walk every day.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I see.

Mr. WITT. Every day that the weather was not extreme, either raining or excessively hot. This day I took the umbrella along and going out, if it was handy for me to do my little act of heckling, then that was my plan, yes.

Mr. FAUNTROY. So it was your intent to use the umbrella if you happened to be on the route that the President was traveling during that day?

Mr. WITT. That is correct.

Mr. Fauntroy. I wonder if you would care to tell us a little more about your understanding of the significance of the umbrella, and why you felt that it would heckle the president to raise the umbrella?

Mr. WITT. I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the--when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador or England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. by association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Is it true that what you felt was that Mr. Kennedy would be sensitive because of the appeasement image of the umbrella as related to his father?

Mr. WITT. Not the appeasement thing. It was just--excuse me--I just understood that it was sort of a sore spot, with them and this was just one thing. I personally never thought too much of liberal politics in general. In this case the Kennedy family just happened to be in office.

Mr. FAUNTROY. I see. And it had no relationship in your own thinking between Mr. Kennedy's posture with; say, the Russians?

Mr. WITT. No. No. No. That was not it at all.

Mr. FAUNTROY. But someone had--no--you had read in the paper that someone had used an umbrella to heckle the President and that it was a sore spot, and that was the reason---

Mr. WITT. Not read in the papers.

Mr. FAUNTROY. Someone told you?

Mr. WITT. Yes. This was in a conversation somewhere at work. I wish that I could remember now who brought the subject up and put this idea in my head. I am sure that I would have taken that umbrella and clouted him over the head somewhere in this last 2 or 3 weeks.

Now, to be clear, I am not claiming I KNOW Witt was Umbrella Man. What I am trying to convey is that those claiming he's NOT Umbrella Man are just wishing it to be so, and haven't done the research necessary to make an intelligent argument otherwise. Heck, some of them haven't even read his testimony. And no one, outside Lifton, even seemed to be aware that Witt was known to researchers well before the HSCA found about him.

Now, if someone wants to either 1) research Witt, and prove him to be a mysterious gent with a motive to lie (and no, having worked at an insurance company isn't sufficient motive), or 2) research Witt and the photo evidence, and prove it is not Witt in the pictures, well, then, fire away. But no one's doing that. They're saying "I smell a rat, and I refuse to accept anyone's explanation for why I smell a rat." And that's exactly the point Tink Makes in the film! SOMETIMES it smells like a rat because some weirdo is wearing rat musk cologne!

When one studies the case, one finds that there are plenty of rat smells where no one has stepped forward and admitted wearing rat musk cologne. I say laugh it off and move on.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Go to the article in The New York Times and listen to what Tink says. There is nothing "playful" about it and

his sarcasm is directed at anyone who believes in conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK! Listen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html

It seems to me Pat Speer not only misses the boat in this case but he is not even anywhere close to the water.

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

What I find astounding is that Tink says he believes Witt simply because his story is so outlandish, it has to be true.

That's no basis on its own to believe anything - imho.

I agree that that is no basis upon which to come to conclusions. I suspect, however, that Tink was merely being playful. I've heard dozens of people say similar things--that truth is stranger than fiction, etc--and didn't take that to mean they honestly believe it's ALWAYS stranger than fiction.

Pat,

The SOLE basis put forward for that proposition was the "weirdness" of Witt's story. I mean. either this was a "light-hearted" or piece or one designed to lay to rest any doubt about UM's identity. Which was it?

I've read a number of interviews with Morris in which he discusses the assassination. I'm pretty sue he leans towards being a LN, but is still partly on the fence. He makes it clear, however, that he is totally intrigued by some people's obsession with the case. He looks at us as lab rats, I suppose, caught in a maze leading to the cheese of truth. In any event, I feel quite certain his "Umbrella Man" movie was just a teaser for the much larger project he's working on. and that his choice of "Umbrella Man" as his opening salvo was due to what he and Thompson interpreted as its humorous nature.

[Cliff Varnell]

According to Witt:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area [on the north side of Elm Street], somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down. . . . [when the motorcade approached] I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street. . . . Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me . . . My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella’s being open.

Based on the available photographs made that day, none of Witt’s statements were an accurate account of the actions of the “umbrella man” who stood waiting for the motorcade with his umbrella in the normal over-the-head position and then pumped it in the air as Kennedy passed.

Rosemary redux:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots.

Since Witt was focused on his umbrella why should it surprise us that he was still focused on handling the umbrella even after it was in a "normal over-the-head position"?

Yeah, there are eccentric people in the world who will make these exciting connections in their minds and grab an umbrella and go heckle the President over something that happened 25 years earlier, or walk by a Fox News van that may or may not have contained people and shout out 45 year old Bob Dylan lyrics.

The shame of it is that the HSCA used Witt to pooh-pooh blood soluble flechette weaponry even though the autopsy doctors considered such a scenario quite possible. The shame of it is that so many people are eager to hang Witt when it should be apparent to students of the era that if the CIA and Special Forces tested this technology it must have caught the attention of one Mitchell WerBell the 3rd.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2359

Why aren't we talking about WerBell, instead of Witt?

Well done obfuscation by the HSCA!

Cliff,

If the Fox news van, at the very end of your utterance, suddenly exploded, do you think you'd be able to walk away and not be questioned for 15 years?

Let's say I went down the Mall dressed as Mary Queen of Scots. Queen Elizabeth II rides by in her horse drawn carriage. I wave a pointy stick at her and shout, "Imposter!" and at that exact moment, much to my surprise, her head falls off. You think I would be allowed to quickly leave, go to the nearest pub for a pint of Guinness, return home, put my Mary Queen of Scots outfit in the wardrobe alongside my pointy stick and have not one person come looking for me for 15 years?

I'd hope in either of those circumstances that a sharp-eyed 10 year old could accurately describe our actions in order to dispel these suspicions.

[Greg Parker]

FWIW, I did a wee bit of digging this morning to see if there's anything I'd missed re Umbrella Man. This immediately popped up. According to this article by Jerry Organ, Witt was not pulled from nowhere and propped up by Blakey as Umbrella Man, but outed by Penn Jones...

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

If this was indeed the case, then Jones would have to have been duped into outing Witt and IDing him as the Umbrella Man. Does anyone here believe this? Really?

Jerry Organ? The seeker of truth?

Von Pein is more open minded than that guy.

That Witt was outed by Jones and Marrs is confirmed by Marrs in Fetzer's post. This happened, evidently, months after the HSCA published a picture of Umbrella Man and asked him to come forward. If Blakey, or anyone, for that matter, had conspired to push a fake Umbrella Man on the public, it only makes sense that they would have done so at that time. If they were in the business of pushing fakes on the public, moreover, it only makes sense to assume they'd have pushed a fake Mexico City Mystery Man as well. Umbrella Man, after all, was merely a topic of discussion among buffs. The Mexico City Mystery Man, on the other hand, had been the topic of a best-seller.

Pat,

This thing can be argued round in circles until we all fall over.

As far as I 'm concerned this guy was probably 20 feet from JFK when he was hit. He's pumping an umbrella in the air at the moment JFK rides past and the shots begin. He then disappeared for 15 years.

As pointed out by Bernice he was 8 years old when the event he was allegedly protesting occurred.

The photographic record is inconclusive for anyone to say it was definitely him. So all we have is Witt's story and a pile of assumptions that every man and his dog is throwing into the mix.

I'm not really buying into anyone's arguments regarding the HSCA and their possible motives for wheeling this guy out. The Mexico City man is a different kettle of fish in my opinion. Blakey wanted the Mexico City stuff to go away more than the Warren Comission did.

I can't say this is an unimportant sideshow because TUM might not be unimportant. He might not be Witt and if he's not, then what does that mean? In an unsolved case like this why would any of us throw something like this in the trash?

I think dismissing him is equally as stupid as saying he was definitely an assassin.

Lee,

I'm not buying into whether it really was Witt or not, but if Russ Baker is right, Witt was put forward through military connections in the building in which he worked. Phoning Penn Jones to give him the tip on Witt would be sheer genius. The resultant publicity would grab the attention of the HSCA. If this scenario is correct, the HSCA had nothing to do with putting Witt up to the charade. But by the same token, they had no interest in really disputing his story - on the contrary, they'd be relieved to wheel Witt out and put UM to bed with as little fuss as possible.

[Cliff Varnell]

I didn't realise Rosemary Willis was in charge of the investigation, Cliff...

I count her as a credible witness. Hell, I count the entire Willis family as THE credible witnesses given their position on Elm St. with excellent views of both JFK in the limo and activity on the knoll area. In an interview given years later Rosemary referred to phony cops in the Plaza. I just don't think they're going to come right out and say "cops shot Kennedy" and still expect to lead normal lives in the state of Texas.

Please understand, Lee, this not about that massive distraction named Louis Witt -- for me, at any rate -- it's about the credibility of Rosemary Willis.

The men don't know what the little girl understands.

[Cliff Varnell]

Its the latter point that I think is important. And therefore for anyone to accept Witt at face value must accept what the HSCA did at face value. Which as many others have shown, including me, is not very wise.

We don't have to accept anything at "face value."

Rosemary Willis describes his actions as benign. She in on it, too?