Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,

http://www.conspiracy.co/forums/main-wall/8966-mary-moorman-breaks-her-silence.html

An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York TImes on the Umbrella Man,

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

OP-DOCS

‘The Umbrella Man’: A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)

The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.

By ERROL MORRIS

Published: November 21, 2011

COMMENTS (254)

For years, I’ve wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?

Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara”) and a recent New York Times best-selling author (“Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography”). His first film, “Gates of Heaven,” is on Roger Ebert’s list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, “Tabloid,” has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson’s career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which had been written earlier.

where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:

23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)

Mark M

New York, NY

November 22nd, 2011

6:16 am

This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.

Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

James H. Fetzer

Location

Oregon, WI

Comment

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?

Jim

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

And by whom, precisely, has this been proven?

[Glenn Viklund]

I think Josiah Thompson made a great performance in this short little snippet. Truly well done in six minutes.

It was personal, humorous and underpinned by a very thoughtful tone. And Thompson is probably spot on; The explanation from the umbrella man was so unimaginable and completely far fetched that it may well be true.

[Jim Phelps]

Ah tell it like it is, Fetzer is only a JFK "Buff".

That is worse than an OP. imho

Pleased to see the EF catching JF in his anti-Zapruder Film games.

[Kathleen Collins]

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so.

I am not surprised that you call Josiah an "op". With all due respect, it is fairly common for you to call folk who don't agree with you "disinfo agent" or some derivative of it.

I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all.

He never said anything about there being no conspiracy. He just happens to believe differently than you. So do I, and on most things, but I would never call you an op because your views are different than mine.

Happy Thanksgiving--best wishes to you and yours.

Kathy

Kathy, do you believe in Conspiracy regarding the JFK murder? I'm just curious about your views. Do you believe Judyth is telling the truth? And that the Z-film has been altered? Did the limo come to a stop? Who was behind it? I currently believe that H.L. Hunt, who was the richest man in the world at that time, financed it. He was a prominent member of the John Birch Society.

Kathy C

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

God, I love it, Ray! The more things change, the more they stay the same. Didn't I cite sources in my reply? Aren't you reading anything? If you are going to comment on a post, at least you should read it.

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt?

And by whom, precisely, has this been proven?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

And "Happy Thanksgiving!" to you, too, Kathy. How much time have you spent on this issue? Have you read the studies to which I make reference in my comments? Have you ever compared the visible blow-out at the back of his head with the earlier frames in which it has been painted over in black? Check 'em out and tell me what Doug Horne, John Costella, and I have wrong. It's a matter of logic and evidence. If you don't see it coming, Tink has been setting himself up to denounce any JFK conspiracy.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so.

I am not surprised that you call Josiah an "op". With all due respect, it is fairly common for you to call folk who don't agree with you "disinfo agent" or some derivative of it.

I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all.

He never said anything about there being no conspiracy. He just happens to believe differently than you. So do I, and on most things, but I would never call you an op because your views are different than mine.

Happy Thanksgiving--best wishes to you and yours.

Kathy

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

So answer my question: How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Tink make in this six minute video? (This is a nice test of how much you understand about any of this, which ain't much.)

I think Josiah Thompson made a great performance in this short little snippet. Truly well done in six minutes.

It was personal, humorous and underpinned by a very thoughtful tone. And Thompson is probably spot on; The explanation from the umbrella man was so unimaginable and completely far fetched that it may well be true.

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Glenn Viklund]

So answer my question: How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Tink make in this six minute video? (This is a nice test of how much you understand about any of this, which ain't much.)

I think Josiah Thompson made a great performance in this short little snippet. Truly well done in six minutes.

It was personal, humorous and underpinned by a very thoughtful tone. And Thompson is probably spot on; The explanation from the umbrella man was so unimaginable and completely far fetched that it may well be true.

Well, whatever it is that I "don't understand" - you are certainly not the right person to change that.

That much I understood a long time ago.

[Glenn Viklund]

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Well said, Martin!

Hmmm, no that last one was difficult to figure out..

[Daniel Gallup]

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

[Dawn Meredith]

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

I responded to this at DPF. Jim you are way outnumbered here. Re Itek. In 76 Dan Rather did one of his anti conspiracy specials for CBS. Itek was used. I obtained the transcript and did a critical paper for college. I discovered Itek was up to its neck in ties to very bad people. CIA, Rockerfellers, etc. In that show Dan Rather actually postulated that the backward motion of JFK was actually caused by.....drumroll..."Jackie".

Dawn

[Daniel Gallup]

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory?

Regards

Lee

It is difficult to sift through the "slowed down" witnessess to "almost stopped" witnesses, to "stopped" witnesses. But the sifting has to be done, and I fear there is a great hesitancy to do this. By the way, I subjectively would link the "almost stopped" witnesses with the "stopped" witnesses as being more corroborative of each other than the "slowed down" witnesses, but that's just an opinion. Based upon Toni Foster, Hargis,Chaney, the Newmans, and a few others, I believe the limo stopped momentarily, for such a short time that others might have said it "almost stopped." But that is again my opinion. I also feel insufficient reflection/study on the matter has hurt the research community and progress on the case. Best, Daniel

[Richard Hocking]

" it's so ridiculous, it must be true" ...

Is this an acceptable guideline for JFK Researchers?

[Glenn Viklund]

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

Daniel,

Fetzer "toning" it down?

Well, according to the article there's been six hours of interviews done with JT. It is a safe bet to assume that Fetzer is not going to tone anything down about that, once more of this becomes published.