Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Don,

David Lifton- are you saying that you never found TUM to be suspicious? And if you (and perhaps others) knew about Witt so long ago, why was this information never circulated throughout the research community at large? By the time I started delving into this subject in the mid-1970s, TUM was considered mysterious and connected in some way to the conspiracy by virtually every Warren Commission critic. But then again, at that time, they all felt there were numerous mysterious deaths connected to the case, that Oswald was quite possibly the figure in the TSBD doorway captured in the Altgens photo, that the Secret Service was negligent, etc. Now. we find an increasing number of alleged believers in conspiracy, including some formerly hardcore CTers, who no longer question these things and call those of us who do "wingnuts" and such.

I am so sick of reading about conspiracy theorists having to believe some sort of list in order not to be called alleged.

Belief in the TUM, mysterious deaths, or a negligent SS are not necessary for conspiracy. The microscopic examination of folk whose beliefs are not quite the same as ours, resulting in the questioning of their current acceptance and retention in "the group", is ridiculous. All that is needed for conspiracy is an agreement between two or more to perform an illegal act.

I am sorry that some people use the term "wingnuts" to describe an "old school" CT. I am also sorry that some of the old school folk call others who don't agree with all of the beliefs "neocons." This creates division,and leads nowhere.

Kathy

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry, Cliff. It just strikes as a peculiar turn of phrase. How can anyone truly know what anyone else "understands"? What is is important is what she saw and heard - not her understanding/interpretation of it.

I stole the line, with a few liberties, from Willie Dixon's "Back Door Man."

"The men don't know but the little girls they understand."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuChTazs9Q

The song was popularized by the Doors.

An attempt to lighten the gravity around here. B)

You're right, perhaps I'm over interpreting what Rosemary said. I can't find anything suspicious in her description of Witt.

Perhaps you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

da burgundy

Sorry, Cliff. It just strikes as a peculiar turn of phrase. How can anyone truly know what anyone else "understands"? What is is important is what she saw and heard - not her understanding/interpretation of it.

I stole the line, with a few liberties, from Willie Dixon's "Back Door Man."

"The men don't know but the little girls they understand."

The song was popularized by the Doors.

An attempt to lighten the gravity around here. B)

You're right, perhaps I'm over interpreting what Rosemary said. I can't find anything suspicious in her description of Witt.

Perhaps you can.

Cliff,

I generally enjoy reading your posts even if you do appear somewhat dogmatic to what you believe happened. Sometimes the tete a tetes with Lamson got very tiresome.

I apologize to the Forum again for all of that. Took a while for Craig to admit that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of his neck, on Elm St.

Discussion over.

Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

But you always spoke of the evidence and defined your arguments very well.

But, I'm sorry, this Rosemary Willis fixation is poor IMO. I'm not saying a 10 year old can't articulate what it is they saw, but for us to take her word as to what it meant just doesn't float.

Thank you for your kind words, Lee. The most important Willis observation, in my opinion, is the part about her father getting angry when policemen ran from the shooting location. I'd say if I had a "fixation" it's with the entire Willis family.

At the end of the day, Rosemary described Witt as being pre-occupied with his umbrella. Witt described himself as being pre-occupied with his umbrella. To me the charge that UM was a shooter or a spotter seems silly, and has caused a great deal of distraction from the case for JFK getting hit with blood soluble rounds.

Yeah, I'm dogmatic about certain things: the sun sets in the west, 2+ 2 = 4, every time a person raises their right arm to wave a la JFK in the motorcade the shirt/blouse fabric along their right shoulder-line INDENTS.

As to the latter, I won't hold my breath waiting for Tink Thompson to prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

David Lifton is absolutely right: there IS a great deal to be learned about JFK research methodology from the study of this thread. The specific posts I recommend are comparing my #160 and #161 with Lifton's #199 and #210, which speak volumes about the two of us. There are also a few points to be derived from reviewing Jim DiEugenio's posts, too, by the way, where the passages he quoted from Witt appear to have been selected to convey the impression that what he had to say was so vague and ambiguous that they could have been made up by anyone and most certainly offered no reasons to believe that he had been there. What Bernice discovered, however, is a completely different matter, where her contribution leaves scant room for doubt that there are good reasons to believe he actually was there, which strengthens my confidence in her and weakens mine in him.

From Fetzer #160:

Well, I'm only beginning to sort this out, but his description of what happened is very close to what happened

as we have reconstructed it. The limo stop, of course, is at the heart of the matter. It was such a blatant example

of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. When you study Clint Hill's report of the sequence of acts

he took--running forward, boarding the vehicle, pushing Jackie down, lying over their bodies and peering into a

fist-sized hole in the back of JFK's head while giving a "thumbs down" BEFORE THE LIMO REACHED the TUP

--which he has been saying and reporting consistently for (then) 47 years--this is hardly the first time we've had

a witness who supported the limo stop. I have given several references to studies that document their reports.

The point is that THIS DESCRIPTION, which was NOT in DiEugenio's summary, POWERFULLY SUGGESTS

HE ACTUALLY WAS THERE. Some of it is rather fascinating, including about the breaks and all that, because it has

not come up before. But when you have a motorcade that is proceeding quite uneventually AND THE LEAD CAR

SLAMS ON ITS BREAKS, it would not be surprising if the car following should run up against it or if other drivers

had to react by slamming on their breaks. So you are making too quick an inferences from the sound of breaks

to assuming the sound came from the limo! What he is saying needs to be sorted out but, given this stunning

and dramatic report (which he cannot have acquired from viewing the Zapruder film), he probably WAS there.

It's like finding a fingerprint or the DNA of someone who was not previously a suspect at a crime scene.

This guy could not possibly have known some of what he is reporting UNLESS HE HAD BEEN THERE. Even the

limo stop is not widely known, even though there are dozens and dozens of witnesses who reported it. Too many

play on the "slowed dramatically" versus "came to a halt" difference, which is splitting hairs, since (1) it had to

slow dramatically to come to a halt and (2) the Zapruder film shows NEITHER dramatic slowing NOR coming to

a halt. So this is really quite remarkable, because, as in the case of Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, Tink has

endorsed Witt, but he turns out to have witnessed the limo stop, which is further proof that the film is a fake.

From Fetzer #161:

Well, it may mean that Robert Morrow was closer to the truth than I was in relation to the Umbrella Man. This

is a new development, Glenn, and if my earlier take was wrong, so be it! A fundamental principle of scientific

reasoning is that the search for truth must be based upon all the available relevant evidence. This new

stuff is STUNNING and includes a man running forward (Clint Hill), motorcycle patrolman (James Chaney), abrupt

stop (which could entail all the other effects of breaking in the motorcade), and remarks about the shots and

their sound. We know many said that the first shot (or "the first shots") sounded like firecrackers. Jim Lewis

has found what may explain that sound. But the fact is we have new evidence to consider in assessing this.

When his testimony was vague and ambiguous, my other arguments carried greater weight. At the very least,

we have found a remarkable additional witness to the limo stop from an expected source--and thanks to Tink!

From Lifton #199:

FETZER'S REVERSAL ON THE QUESTION OF STEVE WITT

In rereading Steve Witt's testimony, I was reminded that he was a strong car-stop witness. And I said to myself, "I think I'll post that section of the testimony. I wonder what Fetzer will say then, when he is confronted with the fact that Witt --who he has been essentially accusing of being part of a murder plot--is in fact a witness supportive of the Zapruder-film-alteration hypothesis?"

Well, another poster (Mr. Marborough) posted that testimony, and its worth repeating here.

QUOTING FROM HSCA VOLUME 4, and the Steve Witt testimony:

"The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car as just about at a position like this [indicating] . . . At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President’s car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things. (4 HSCA 433)

And then this: “Sometime later after the cars moved out, this is when all this activity in the cars stopping and the cars moved out, I recall a man (433) sitting down to my right and he said something like: “They done shot them folks.”

"The next time I saw the car the car was when this activity of the car stopping, one car rushing up on another the motorcycle patrolman stopping, there was this screeching of tires, this sort of thing." (4 HSCA 440)

Obviously, Steve Witt is a "car-stop" witness--and he wasn't even asked about that specifically. It just popped out.

Well now, what does Jim Fetzer say about that?

Guess what? Why that's enough to convince Fetzer that Steve Witt was "really there"!

From Lifton's #210:

And so what we end up with is a “fractured” JFK “research community” which focuses on such nonsense as a weaponized umbrella, and the rejection of a valid witness--Witt, who also happens to be an important "car-stop" witness (how ironic)-- and the promulgation of ridiculous theories about how Witt was foisted on a Congressional Committee, all part of “the plot”, while a prominent defender of fraud in the evidence (James Fetzer) has destroyed his own credibility because he happens to also believe that a missile (or some other military aircraft) hit the Pentagon, that the 9/11 hijackers are “still alive” and that “no planes” hit the World Trade Center (and that perhaps that we did not go to the moon).

So, perhaps, you can now understand what the problem with “JFK research” is all about.

If you’re looking for the problem with the “JFK research community,” what I have described above is the problem. (And, unfortunately, its not going away, anytime soon).

WHAT DOES THIS TELL US ABOUT OUR RESPECTIVE RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES?

Obviously, Lifton likes to "cherry pick" his arguments. Here are the four lessons that everyone should be able to derive from this latest exchange:

(1) Having learned that Witt reported details that he could not possibly have known had he NOT been there (which happen to concern the car stop). I explain (i) I'm only beginning to sort this out, (ii) that DiEugenio had not included this crucial aspect of his testimony, and (iii) that the requirement of total evidence demands that we base our reasoning on all the available relevant evidence, which means we have to base our reasoning on every part of the evidence that makes a difference to the strength of support for alternative hypotheses.

(2) Lifton not only suppresses these posts of mine (which were obviously there as #160 and #161 when he posted #199 and #210), which means that he practices the fallacy of special pleading by only citing the evidence favorable to his side, but, by ignoring my remark about "only beginning to sort this out", employs the straw man by exaggerating my position in order to make it easier to attack in asserting, "That's enough to convince Fetzer that Steve Witt was 'really there'", when it instead convinced me I had to review this more carefully.

(3) Lifton would have you believe that there is something irrational about changing my mind (or at least reconsidering my position) when I make it very clear that now "we have new evidence to consider in assessing this. When his testimony was vague and ambiguous, my other arguments carried greater weight. At the very least, we have found a remarkable additional witness to the limo stop from an expected source", where these parts of his testimony are as stunning as the discovery of a person's fingerprints or DNA at the scene of a crime.

(4) Lifton cannot resist reiterating cheap shots about 9/11, claiming that I have "destroyed [my] own credibility because happen to also believe that a missile (or some other military aircraft) hit the Pentagon, that the 9/11 hijackers are “still alive” and that “no planes” hit the World Trade Center (and that perhaps that we did not go to the moon)". As I have explained before, this guy has never studied 9/11 and has no idea what he is talking about -- even when I have explained my position right here on this very thread.

Go back to post #98, for example, where I present images that were released by the Pentagon that show a plane just above the gate mechanism exuding a white plume of smoke, where pilots and aeronautical engineers have explained to me that that is inconsistent with jet exhaust, which would be black, but consistent with a missile having been fired from the plane, which, as Jack White's comparison of a Boeing 757 with the image in the frame displays, is far too small to have been a 757, but where I am now in doubt because all those frames may be faked.

oa4sw8.jpg

What is there to fault in my research methodology? I apply scientific reasoning to the evidence and draw the conclusions that follow from it. Take a look at "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where I explain why I (at that time) believed a missile had been fired into the Pentagon and also cite a study by A.K. Dewdey and Ralph Longspaugh (note #45), who had examined the damage to the supporting columns beneath the building, which they found to be consistent with a small plane crash but not with that of a Boeing 757.

As for the possibility that some of the hijackers might still be alive, this perhaps even more than his other remarks demonstrates that he is woefully ignorant of research on 9/11, including by David Ray Griffin, the leading expert on 9/11, who has published ten books about it, including THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT: OMISSIONS AND DISTORTIONS (2005), in which he explains (on page 19, which is the first section of the first chapter) as his very first point that six of the alleged hijackers have been reported to be alive. Check it out!

He also tosses in for good measure my skepticism about whether planes rather than impressions (or images) of planes hit the Twin Towers. If the hijacker issue was elementary knowledge within the 9/11 community, the question of "no planes" or "video fakery" is advanced, where someone who knows as little as Lifton about 9/11 isn't going to have a clue. For those who want to consider the evidence, take a look at "Inside Job: More Proof of 9/11 Duplicity", where I offer proof substantiating my concerns of which Lifton appears oblivious.

358rj8w.jpg

The arguments I have give about the South Tower hit (shown here) include that the plane is traveling faster than aerodynamically possible for a Boeing 767, that it enters the building with no crumpling or breaking off of wings or tail nor bodies, seats or luggage falling to the ground, and where frame-by-frame advance shows that it passes through its own length into the tower in the same number of frames it passes through its own length in air -- which is apparently not enough to capture the attention of a one-time graduate student in physics!

Now I have learned that appeals to evidence do not impress Lifton, especially when his mind is made up. The moon landing issue is another example where, after having reviewed multiple studies (nine of which are linked on assassinationscience.com), I have found that the weight of the evidence suggests we did not go to the moon but faked having gone once we had discovered that actually going there was beyond our technical and scientific capabilities. But Lifton would not know, since he knows if anything even less about the moon landings than he does about 9/11.

What this means is that he is committing another fallacy, which in this case is an appeal to popular sentiments, where the inference is drawn that, because most people believe we went to the moon, therefore we went to the moon. If find it ironic that the evidence I present about the missile strike and planes in New York revolve around faking frames or faking planes, where his work on the Zapruder film ought to have made him more skeptical about what the government has said about 9/11 as much as he doubts the government about JFK.

But consistency in research methodology is not Lifton's strong suit. He is willing to commit fallacies--special pleading, the straw man and the appeal to popular sentiments--whenever it advances his agenda, which is to discount my research on JFK by appealing to his beliefs about 9/11, no matter how ignorant he may be about it, as he has demonstrated, once again, in his latest posts. My mistake, which I freely admit, was to assume that DiEugenio was reporting what was significant about Witt's testimony, when that was not the case.

So there ARE lessons to be learned here. Changing your mind when presented with new evidence is a rational response. To maintain prior beliefs when they have been undermined is not. I make the practice of presenting the evidence that I take to be relevant when I discuss these questions, as I have done throughout this thread. Whatever impression Lifton may want to convey, I am not done sorting this out as a fascinating case in the analysis of conflicting and even contradictory evidence, where we continue to get closer and closer to the truth.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Dean,

What justifies a reaction of this kind? We all have things to learn here, including that DiEugenio is not always a reliable source, even in relation to recounting the testimony of an interesting figure from the HSCA hearings, which is rather unexpected, and that Lifton is willing to shade the evidence and commit multiple fallacies in order to "nail me", which is not.

I had rather expected him to show up and tackle Tink for reaffirming his abandonment of the "double-hit" analysis of SIX SECONDS (1967), which Lifton had actually verified with Richard Feyman, who demonstrated it to him. Which means that Tink has subverted the strongest scientific argument in his book for the sake, it now appears, of trashing JFK conspiracy research.

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean,

What justifies a reaction of this kind? We all have things to learn here, including that DiEugenio is not always a reliable source, even in relation to recounting the testimony of an interesting figure from the HSCA hearings, which is rather unexpected, and that Lifton is willing to shade the evidence and commit multiple fallacies in order to "nail me", which is not.

I had rather expected him to show up and tackle Tink for reaffirming his abandonment of the "double-hit" analysis of SIX SECONDS (1967), which Lifton had actually verified with Richard Feyman, who demonstrated it to him. Which means that Tink has subverted the strongest scientific argument in his book for the sake, it now appears, of trashing JFK conspiracy research.

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

The flip flopping on Witt is killing me, but thats not the main reason

Tink not only insulted Cutler, he insulted every single one of us that has a conspiracy theory that we back up

It makes no difference that I dont agree with Cutler, Tinks comment that Cutler is a wingnut is the same as calling you and I wingnuts for backing Z-film alteration

This enrire thread has some very good posts from Don and Lee but nobody seems to notice

I really wish that all of us could just stay together and present a united front

I know thats wishful thinking but do know how strong we would be fighting against the LNers then amongst ourselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

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 :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Cliff. It just strikes as a peculiar turn of phrase. How can anyone truly know what anyone else "understands"? What is is important is what she saw and heard - not her understanding/interpretation of it.

I stole the line, with a few liberties, from Willie Dixon's "Back Door Man."

"The men don't know but the little girls they understand."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UuChTazs9Q

The song was popularized by the Doors.

An attempt to lighten the gravity around here. B)

You're right, perhaps I'm over interpreting what Rosemary said. I can't find anything suspicious in her description of Witt.

Perhaps you can.

Cliff, has anyone ever asked her if she thought his actions were suspicious - whether in retrospect, or at the time?

Trying to discern "suspicion" in a cold description of someone's actions is a little tricky and may necessitate actual mind-reading. However, finding those actions in and of themselves, suspicious, is a different matter and does not depend upon suspicion actually being verbalized by the describer.

I'll quite happily get behind Witt as the genuine article if anyone can produce evidence that JFK was ever heckled prior to 11/22 by umbrella wielding hecklers as claimed by Witt. I've searched newspaper archives and found nothing even vaguely similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Pat,

I love how you bypass #215 and respond to #217 as though that were the important post. When I see some

even-handed distribution of pros and cons, I will have to reassess my impression of you as a dilettante in

JFK research. Cliff was paraphrasing what Tink said during his interview, namely: that for every seemingly

conspiratorial element in the study of the assassination, there are innumerable innocuous explanations. You

ignore the dozens of important points I make in the earlier post to claim I have slighted Tink in the latter,

without even acknowledging that I was simply quoting another student of the case who noticed the same thing.

I expect Junk to show up and cast doubt on any who challenge Tink's integrity, but you continue to post more

and more nonsense. Get serious, Pat. It's far past time to take account of Tink's deliberate subversion of

JFK conspiracy research. How long is it going to take for you to come to grips with what's under your nose?

Jim

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

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.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read and reread what Cliff Varnell has posted, namely: "Guess who owns all of Lamson's spew? Tink Thompson. He told Errol Morris that there is a "valid, non-sinister" explanation for every "sinister" fact in the case. Let Tink defend "bunch theory" now! He owns it lock stock and barrel. Lamson, I have him on "ignore" and there will be no further "tete a tetes."

This is serious, Dean. Give it more thought. The good guys and the bad guys are sorting themselves out. But, then again, discovering that some of us are not the persons we pretended to be IS nauseating, so I think I agree with you. It is enough to make you want to throw up. And it's all coming to a head in relation to the 50th observance of the assassination.

Jim

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.

It's a distinction without a difference and he's 100% wrong. Tink clearly dismisses the entire notion of "sinister fact" in the JFK assassination.

Here's the vid. Check out the sarcasm dripping from Tink's "really sinister" and "sinister underpinning".

Here's a transcript:

(laughing) What it means is, that if you have any fact which you think is really sinister, right? Is really, obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister under-pinning -- hey, forget it, man, because you can never, on your own, think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid explanations for that fact. A cautionary tale.

Pat, you appear to infer that Tink is commenting on the cognitive imperfections of human beings; it seems clear to me that he's dissuading people from the "sinister fact" meme held near and dear by most CTs.

Not only does Tink Thompson own every non-sequitur and baseless claim of Craig Lamson, he owns your "I Almost Did It With My Girlfriend" alleged "recreation" of bunch theory.

Tink also owns John Hunt's "that essay (making his case) isn't finished yet."

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.

"May"? Where does Tink make any such qualification? He smugly tells you to "forget it, man" -- how much more of a blanket statement do you want?

Where is the appeal for an open mind in that segment? It seems to foreclose anything anyone would regard as "sinister" -- quite explicitly.

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.

But that's not what he concluded. He's using this to make blanket assertions he can't back up. His comment does not apply to the physical evidence in the case -- the bullet holes in JFK's clothing. Hard, concrete, measurable and knowable evidence which is impervious to Tink's assertion.

He owns all the spew this post will engender.

There is NO valid non-sinister explanation for the location of the holes in the clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...