Greg Burnham

I thank Tink for answering my direct question with a direct answer. However, I wish he had stated his position in that clip so that the general public would be aware of it.

I would very much appreciate it if Doctor Tink would tell us, for the record, WHERE HE STANDS TODAY regarding JFK's assassination. Does he believe it was a conspiracy or a lone nut?

If the former, I would like to respectfully submit that he has a responsibility to the general public, as a visible public personality, to remove any doubt as to where he stands on the BIG PICTURE.

There is an argument to be made that the damage has already been done. We shall see.

I have "fallen into traps" before on the JFK assassination. Then when I see the error of my ways I try to get out of that hole as quick as possible. That means I change my mind when the weight of evidence changes direction.

As for this this NY Times - Josiah Thompson - Umbrella Man thing ... it looks like it is yet more generalized lone nutter propaganda given an NY Times platform. Really, instead of debunking one probably fallacy - that Umbrella Man was part of the assassination, they could have used that valuable air space/print space to document a THOUSAND things that point to a coup d'etat.

So we have yet another pathetic performance by the NY Times. Perhaps not an error of commission, but a thousand errors of ommission. How about an article on Fletcher Prouty's and Victor Krulak's identification of Maj. Gen. Edward Lansdale at the TSBD and what that probably means? Spend a little time on that photo and the backgrounds of Lansdale and what Prouty has to offer.

That is but one mere example.

As for Josiah Thompson - count me extremely unimpressed with his smug attitude and *performace* and that is exactly what he was doing *performing* as the JFK expert for the NY Times, playing along with their lone nutter agenda, much in the way "conspiracy theorist" Gary Mack constantly does.

In my opinion, this is the most valuable post you have ever made, Robert!

Oh, gimme a break!!!

Look, here's the deal. The New York Times newspaper and their "other media interests" reach MILLIONS of "everyday" folk each day. They reach millions of people who are not well versed in this subject, but who are VERY interested in it. By viewing this film, these uninitiated folk might be exposed to this information for the VERY FIRST TIME.

This film is not primarily for researchers, it is for public consumption!

THAT IS THE ONLY "CONTEXT" WORTH CONSIDERING!

Now, in that context, his performance is weak. Very damn weak.

Cliff is mistaken, Jim. Tink never claimed there is a valid, non-sinister explanation for every seemingly sinister fact in the case. He said merely that we are incapable of anticipating every possible explanation for something that seems sinister. And he's 100% correct.

Tink's "cautionary tale" is not a "cautionary tale" telling people not to try to figure out what happened, it is a "cautionary tale" telling people to keep an open mind and not get high on their own supply, as something that seems sinister may be nothing more than a weird guy out for a walk.

There is nothing sinister about the film. It was not designed to shut down assassination research, as some here seem to think. It was an attempt to humanize it, and show how one researcher named Tink Thompson encountered a red herring and was humbled by it.

Excellent, Pat. Taking one person's characterization of what another person said, and using it to denounce that other person without actually knowing and citing exactly what *was* said is beyond poor, imo.

Well said, Pat.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Since when does "forget it, man" translate into an appeal for an open mind?

Tink made a blanket statement neither he, nor you, nor Pat, nor John Hunt can ever back up.

Tink's conclusions do not well apply to the JFK assassination.

Thanks for posting the video clip of what Tink actually said in your post #227. Here is what Tink says in that snippet ... of course, from this, we have no way of knowing what led up to this comment, and context, is everything.

QUOTE TINK THOMPSON [all emphasis mine-bj]

If you have any fact which you think is really sinister, it's really obviously a fact that can only point to some sinister underpinning, hey, forget it man, because you can never. on your own, think of all the non-sinister perfectly valid explanations for that fact. That's a cautionary tale.

END QUOTE

I understand the context of what he is saying. It's about weighing and evaluating evidence and not being so cock sure of what we believe about any particular fact that we don't check it out to see what else that fact could possibly mean and fail to get the perspective of others on it.

What I do NOT see is any part of this that someone reading it, complete and in context, can take to mean that Tink is saying there is not a single sinister fact in the case that cannot be explained away.

That is selective, shortsighted nonsense, in my opinion. He is calling it "a cautionary tale" because too many fall headlong into the pitfall he described. And there are many who fall into that pit regularly. Ironically enough, there are examples of exactly that even in this thread.

Please.

I would like to echo another's sentiments in this thread. It would have been well advised for Tink to have clarified his current position (LN or CT) notwithstanding his evaluation of this particular evidence. His failure to do so (at least in the available clip) is more than troubling because it tends to create the appearance of equivocation on his part. If he did make such a clarifying statement that was edited out of the clip, then there are other forces in play. On the other hand, if he failed to mention his existing position or failed to demand that his position be included "for the record" then he owns the failure in its entirety. Perhaps such a statement will appear in another segment? If not, the responsibility to speak unequivocally was his and he should have required its inclusion.

Now, there is a "price to pay" for making such demands, I know. But, under the circumstances such a price is cheap at twice the cost! I have personally withdrawn from 3 television specials in the past for their refusal to allow me to state my position. One such case was a special in which I was asked to debunk "ice bullets" in general, and then more specifically, as they may have been used to inflict JFK's shallow back wound. Upon debunking "their particular ice bullet scenario", which I might add was quite weak, I wanted to make it clear that the exploration of such evidence does not constitute forensic quackery; that even if "ice bullets" (as they defined them) were not used in Dealey Plaza that does not mean JFK was killed by a lone gunman...etc.

They refused. I withdrew. End of show. I have never regretted that decision, nor similar subsequent decisions. The more visible a member of this community has become the more important it is for them to make their BIG PICTURE position clear. If not, our work becomes farcical and just one more target for the disingenuous.

It is my understanding, based on what Morris wrote in the article referenced and quoted in the opening post of this thread, that this first article by Morris is based on just a mere snippet of his 6 hour long interview with Tink Thompson. Morris said:

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.

It would seem to me, that unless you, Mr. Fetzer and a couple others here have somehow seen the entirety of the SIX HOUR interview, that Thompson is being rather prematurely pilloried for what he did or did not say. Thompson also is not the author of the NYT times article ... Morris is. What Morris chose to include in this first article lays at his feet, not Thompson's. And, unless Thompson or Morris chooses to disclose any info about the particulars of their arrangement, there is nothing to criticize or compare there either.

It might seem to many, imo, that the intent of some, and I am not saying you are one of those, is to denounce Tink, call his beliefs and intentions into question, and, initially, at least subject him to ridicule and suspicion based on his opinion of Witt. Of course when it became apparent that the originator of the thread, who was critical about how Tink had it all wrong on Witt, was unaware of Witt's actual testimony, there was a marked flip-flop ... notably about Witt, but not about Thompson. The criticism of Tink Thompson, based on this small snippet a writer chose for an initial article, somehow continues.

Personally, I just don't see any reason or logic in that. Unless, of course, you or others have seen the entire 6 hour interview and can support the suspicions being cast about Thompson.

As Kathy Becket pointed out, all CTs do not believe the exact same things. There is no "ten commandments of CT" test of which I am aware, and the very notion is nonsense. Like all of us who have studied the case, Thompson is entitled to his own considered opinions. Ultimately, whether this, that or the other of us agrees with him or not, it is to our benefit to listen to what such a well known, highly and widely respected, accomplished and long time part of our community has to say. At the very least, denouncing Thompson before having even heard it all fails on even a basic honest research level, imo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

As I said in my post: IF Tink clarified his current position in subsequent segments, then it should, hopefully, speak for itself. If not, I stand by the criticism I made of his "performance" in this film. And, BTW, I am not casting suspicion about Tink. I am unequivocally denouncing his position as currently presented because of the reasons stated.

I long ago suspected that Gary Mack would, one day, debunk Badge Man himself. So far, he has not. Perhaps Tink remains a Conspiracy Researcher as opposed to a Lone Nut Advocate. I just couldn't tell from his presentation. A pity...

I think that you have made some very valid observations, Cliff. Indeed, there is overwhelming PHYSICAL evidence (everything from the alleged weapon, to JFK's clothing, to the MBT, and much more) that indicates the event was of a SINISTER nature. Tink's demeanor towards indications of same appears to be one of dismissal.

I would like to echo another's sentiments in this thread. It would have been well advised for Tink to have clarified his current position (LN or CT) notwithstanding his evaluation of this particular evidence. His failure to do so (at least in the available clip) is more than troubling because it tends to create the appearance of equivocation on his part. If he did make such a clarifying statement that was edited out of the clip, then there are other forces in play. On the other hand, if he failed to mention his existing position or failed to demand that his position be included "for the record" then he owns the failure in its entirety. Perhaps such a statement will appear in another segment? If not, the responsibility to speak unequivocally was his and he should have required its inclusion.

Now, there is a "price to pay" for making such demands, I know. But, under the circumstances such a price is cheap at twice the cost! I have personally withdrawn from 3 television specials in the past for their refusal to allow me to state my position. One such case was a special in which I was asked to debunk "ice bullets" in general, and then more specifically, as they may have been used to inflict JFK's shallow back wound. Upon debunking "their particular ice bullet scenario", which I might add was quite weak, I wanted to make it clear that the exploration of such evidence does not constitute forensic quackery; that even if "ice bullets" (as they defined them) were not used in Dealey Plaza that does not mean JFK was killed by a lone gunman...etc.

They refused. I withdrew. End of show. I have never regretted that decision, nor similar subsequent decisions. The more visible a member of this community has become the more important it is for them to make their BIG PICTURE position clear. If not, our work becomes farcical and just one more target for the disingenuous.

Don,

You raise very good points, IMO, and have asked a very good question, as well. I think that part of the answer to your question remains unpleasant. For those who have been involved in this investigation for "the long haul" it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that we (WR critics) were long ago infiltrated by the disingenuous. Any serious student of this case will not be surprised by that fact. Indeed, it is par for the course no matter how "nutty" some may paint that statement. It should not even be a surprise. Would we really expect anything less? Not a chance.

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

No Glenn, it doesn't take that. However, that the "other" film is consistent with the testimony/recollection of the vast majority of eye and ear witnesses to the event is significant. It is further significant that there are items NOT seen in the extant Z-film that were memorable for the eyewitnesses. While it is true that eyewitness testimony/recollections can be faulty, it is also true that memorable items of distinction tend to stand out in one's memory and are more likely to be accurately reported than less memorable items. An unexpected dramatic slowing of the vehicle and/or a distinct STOP are examples of such items. That Abraham Zapruder remembered filming the entire turn onto Elm from Houston is another memorable event that is not shown in the extant Z-film. And there are many more examples. How about the Newmans, among others, who reported seeing Secret Service agents climb out of the Queen Mary and draw automatic weapons? How about the wide turn onto Elm that then resulted in an over correction, briefly steering the limo into the far left lane...etc., etc,...? So, before anyone summarily dismisses the idea of Z-film alteration they would be wise to research the subject thoroughly before reaching a conclusion one way or the other.

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

P.S. Jack told me that Robert Cutler had done studies of all of this some time back. Could someone repost it here?

Jim,

Much of Cutler's work was consistent with (and sometimes based upon) the reportage of Fletcher Prouty.

THE UMBRELLA SYTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague & Robert Cutler

In this interview, Tink suggests that at the quantum level things appear to be

weird--or at least appear to behave weirdly--but at other "normal" levels [not

being examined too closely, i.e., not under the microscope] things appear to be

normal and appear to behave normally. Fine, but...

Nevertheless, the fallacy in his argument is obvious. Not only is the above

[quantum physics] an inadequate analogy, he misuses his own example! Why?

Because at a quantum level things do not merely appear to be weird/behave

weirdly (as he admits), but (what he leaves out) things actually appear to be

weird/behave weirdly because they ARE weird and they ARE behaving weirdly

when compared to what we think we know about how things work. So too does

special ops appear weird when compared to "what we think we know..."

To refer to Cutler and/or Sprague as "wing nuts" is fallacious on its face as it

is ad hominem. Cutler was a brilliant and honest investigator by all reports

that I have read. But, the insult to intelligence Tink offers us is magnified by

his wholly self-serving, cavalier, blanket dismissal of all but the evidence

that he "cherry picks" to cite, such as, the very late arrival of Witt, which is

"special pleading" at its finest! His reliance on belated testimony: citing a

somewhat obscure reference to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy--two

and a half decades AFTER the fact--is comical. Moreover, he said [paraphrased]:

"That's so weird it must be true."

So to which part of his explanation does the analogy to quantum physics apply?

Is the Umbrella Man, as an accomplice, "the weird part" that's analogous to the

weirdness of quantum physics? Or is it the part that he himself labeled "weird"

-- namely, the Witt/Chamberlain "umbrella protest" part?

Tink offers nothing of substance here. He's attempting to be a debunker's

debunker to be sure. Based on this interview, I don't think he has the

intellectual capacity to be a disinfo agent, though. Who'd hire him?

Frames 456 through 459 of the Zapruder film look to me to show something astonishing.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/Zapruderframesviewer.php Zapruder film viewer

Look at that lamp post towards the rear of the limo. It looks like the bottom part leaps from being anchored on the near side of the street in 457 to the far side in 458 and back again in 459.

Well, if that really happened, the Zapruder film would have captured something even more astonishing than the assassination of a President!

So... What's going on here?

Do all known prints show this?

If this is some type of optical illusion, what is the phenomenon, and can people give other examples of films where this can be seen?

(I request replies addressing what is seen in this particular segment of the film, rather than broader arguments on the authenticity/lack of authenticity of the film, thank you.)

It does look peculiar, especially because you can still see--what appears to be--the bright reflection off of the back fender at a point where the light pole should be blocking that reflection from our view, IMO. Perhaps this can be explained as being due to a property of bright light when it is exposed onto film. Maybe the brightness of the reflection is sufficient to make it "bleed" around the darker pole, obscuring the latter from view. Just a guess, FWIW.

The Umbrella Delivery System is real and it is accurate. I do not know if it was employed that day or not, but to dismiss it as if it was impossible is irresponsible.

Greg, how could one aim the thing from its position secreted inside an open umbrella? A dart fired without aiming - combat aiming like the soldier is illustrated doing in the period magazine article about the weapon - could have gone anywhere, and into anybody in the car. I doubt The Umbrella Man could have pin-pointed a flechette into JFK's throat or other vulnerable areas.

Was the umbrella weapon designed to hit a seated man passing in an open car, using its downward-pointing ribs? Did it have a target acquiring system? Was it a dart that flew past Connally's left before striking JFK, causing Connally to swat at it with his hat like it was a bee, as we see in Zapruder? Or was that a bullet from the front?

*

One thing that everyone should notice is that if Errol Morris makes a film or films on the assassination, these works are going to be widely seen and commented on, will be made examples of "conspiracy" investigation, and will be associated with the research community.

I'm sure you all know the cautionary tales to add here, though Morris has heretofore been excellent at his metier of using the camera to deconstruct perceived reality. I wish he'd do that the right way for the assassination, for instance examining the film coverage of Dealey Plaza. But, will the research community end up appearing to be a "quantum leap" between perception and reality?

Fletcher Prouty actually watched it demonstrated for him by Lansdale and an associate. In one demonstration, the dart was fired from an umbrella at a distance of about 300 feet (the length of an American football field). It literally "obliterated" the entire left hind quarter of the goat at which it was aimed because it had been fitted with a high explosive. The flechette runs on solid rocket fuel and, unlike a bullet, the velocity of the dart actually INCREASES the entire journey from source to target, which means it does not lose momentum nor does it's trajectory begin to deteriorate from distance as long as it has fuel. It makes no sound as one would expect from a bullet because it does not depend on the explosion and rapidly expanding resultant gases for energy. The fuel is electronically ignited and the dart makes only a very soft "fizzing" sound as it travels, a sound that one could easily miss due to ambient noise as well as the speed at which the source of the sound is moving away.

For an in depth look at Cutler & Sprague's article see this link:

THE UMBRELLA SYSTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler

The Umbrella Delivery System is real and it is accurate. I do not know if it was employed that day or not, but to dismiss it as if it was impossible is irresponsible.

Now we've all see this image... yet I had not read about how this man gets out to his perch and then back in again...

It would seem he exited the 2nd floor window

or may have come down from the third floor.... ?

Any more info on Fire Escape Man? (FEM? lol)

thanks

DJ

Near the upper right section of the first picture, which is magnified, are there 2 men hiding there with rifles or am I seeing things?

Kathy C

Don't think you're seeing things... is this any better?

Figure in the 3rd floor window appears to be wearing a hat similar to the guy on the fire escape.

David, do you know who that 3rd floor office was used by in November of 1963?

It's conspicuously close to the offices of Abraham Zapruder which occupied the 4th and 5th floors of the Dal-Tex building.

.

Nice one, Bill!

Which, demonsrates exactly why you (as well as many others) are absolutely "nowhere" on the subject matter.

Don't suppose that any light bulbs actually came on and illuminated the extremely high possibility/probability that someone in a position to "know", just may have been directing LHO as to what to do, where and when??????

Sure as hell would have thought that some of those whose brain is relatively well eaten up with the "conspiracy bug", would have recognized that even in this day of the internet, LHO would have had difficulty in location of all of the "false scents" that he left, which also lead to so many false trails for those such as yourself to folllow.

Considerable difference between being a "lone nut", and a "lone assassin".

The first means that one is relatively "squirrely", which could also apply to the great majority of JFK (purported) researchers.

The second merely means that one is the only person involved in the actual deed. It does not negate the possibility that one was not involved in some sort of conspiracy which ultimately lead to the event.

If, and when the true researchers come to recognize the difference, then they will also recognize he importance of LHO's "past life" in New Orleans.

Tom,

I am unfamiliar with your position. Are you saying you believe that although Oswald was part of a wider conspiracy, he was the lone gunman?

In all due respect, obviously, if that's what you believe, such a stance must be burdensome for you to maintain. I know that we must disagree on what the physical evidence indicates, whereby I believe that the physical evidence precludes a lone assassin and you apparently do not. In my view, maintaining the position that the evidence is consistent with a single gunman is precarious, at best. I don't envy you your task of defending such an unlikely, even impossible, argument. If I have misunderstood you, my apologies.

Barry Zorthian (Skull & Bones 1941) was a Vice President of TIME, Inc., and a spokesperson for the US Embassy in Saigon during the Vietnam War. As President, George H. W. Bush appointed him to the Board for International Broadcasting in 1990.

Nice one, Bill!

When I interviewed Noguchi some 15 years ago he stated, unequivocally, that the shot which killed RFK could not have been fired from in front.

He further said that unless RFK had turned nearly 180 degrees, thus facing away from Sirhan (something that none of the witnesses saw) and then, only if Sirhan had advanced another 3 feet toward the Senator (something none of the witnesses saw), and fired the fatal shot at point-blank-range (no more than 2-3 inches maximum according to Noguchi), it was his professional opinion as the Chief Medical Examiner that Sirhan could not have fired the fatal shot. Noguchi was as adamant about that conclusion as Cyril Wecht and David Mantik are about JFK's autopsy being fraudulent.

In the RFK case, Noguchi was the actual Medical Examiner who conducted the autopsy. Very powerful first hand evidence, indeed.

Thanks Mike. Good to see you're still around.

.

Don,

Evaluating this issue is long overdue, IMO. Thanks for bringing it up. When I was in school, particularly in Junior High, I was the victim of bullying. My mother had chosen to send me to first grade (I skipped kindergarten) when I was barely 5 years old. So, I had two disadvantages. The first: I was less accustomed to being in "social" environments than were the other children in my class who had attended kindergarten, and second, I was always going to be the smallest boy in the class because, not only did I start school younger than the rest, but I "skipped" the first step. Those who were my own age (or even a little bit older) went into kindergarten when I entered 1st grade. It was difficult at that age, but it really became difficult in Junior High. Obviously, I survived it and have flourished. However, it was a very painful period of my life. Bottom line: my height and weight as an adolescent should have had no bearing on my social stature in school. I am unsure as to how I would have faired if I hadn't grown to 6' tall my sophomore year in high school under those circumstances.

I could make an argument that the experience made me a better person...etc., but it also could have potentially turned out quite differently. I'm grateful that it didn't.

I think it's an interesting phenomenon that sometimes even the teachers want to be in the "clique" of the most "popular" students. That is a very sad commentary as to the judgment of many teachers, not to mention their own lack of self esteem.

Although I have had my differences with Scott over factual matters, I don't believe he has done anything approaching the need to be moderated. I think he is sincere and probably working hard on this subject. Also, for whatever reason, sometimes personalities may simply tend to clash, as well, resulting in a tendency for posts to drift off topic.

That said, I agree that the thread in question should NOT be locked.

Take two pills. Hell, take the whole damn bottle. Calm down, dude! None of us have all the answers. Not even you.

Good stuff, Bill. Thanks--