Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Pat Speer]

"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."

I strongly agree with this assessment.

Tink's performance was another snickers bar thrown to those who want to dismiss the whole thing.

He may well be cooking more nutritious fare.

But how many will even get the change to smell it.

We need to wake up to the communications verities. Those who work to dismiss when millions are watching and then claim to still be researchers before an audience of 22 ... well they have much to answer when our communications environment has become so moated and mined.

Thompson knows damn well proponents of the historical fact of conspiracy are not given a second on Wide audience media. He chose to take the slingshot from David and give it to Goliath. He chose glibness before a corrupt lens over opportunity.

No. He did a 6-hour interview with an Academy Award-winning, Dallas-decimating film-maker named Errol Morris, who posted a snippet of the interview on his NY Times blog.

There is nothing sinister about the film. Those thinking it an attack on the conspiracy research community as a whole are incorrect, and being overly sensitive. In the broader context, moreover, it is a pro-conspiracy theorist film. In film, style matters as much as substance. And Thompson--a noted conspiracy theorist--is presented as a straightforward and honest researcher with an engaging disposition and the ability to laugh--the exact opposite of what many Times readers would expect.

Bravo, Tink.

(With reservations... I do wish you hadn't called Cutler a "wing-nut.")

[Cliff Varnell]

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence.

This is exactly my beef with Tink Thompson. "In terms of proof," the case for conspiracy has been iron-clad since Vincent Salandria published in 1965.

The notion that we have to provide "better and better proof" of conspiracy is pernicious and willfully dismissive of the prima facie case for conspiracy so well made by Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Milicent Cranor and others.

[Cliff Varnell]

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work.

If you're trying to do contemporary historical research, Tink, you've made a pretty bad botch of it if you haven't figured out the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat wound.

Another trip down the head wound rabbit hole? Micro-analyzing Z312 and 313?

You consider this "real work" -- I do not.

Given the historical fact that the FBI report on the autopsy mentioned possible pre-autopsy surgery to the head we can never be sure about the head wounds.

We can be dead certain about the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat entrance wound -- real work Tink Thompson has been loathe to engage.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it.

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports.

First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence.

But the importance of this is even greater.

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church.

My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important.

JT

Excellent, Tink ... all the way around. Glad to hear about the testimonies that one of *them* pointed you toward ... and glad you mentioned the book you are working on ... again. How soon some forget, or choose to ignore. As you know, I also share that head shot premise and I am excited about the work happening because of you digging in and doing it.

And, in what you said about researchers ... it is a bit like denominational quibbles over theology resulting in schisms. And that reminds me of an acceptance speech you gave at COPA back in about 1995 when you were the recipient of a lifetime achievement award. You said then, what some here have been saying in this thread to those who seem to promote divisiveness in the research community. Somewhere it is on a video of the presentation that night .... I should look for it. But you said, in essence, that the truth should be our only quest and that the only way we have a chance of discovering it is if we park the egos, lose the labels and the us vs them mentality, roll up our sleeves and get to work ... together. Very wise words. Not heeded, by all, unfortunately, and look where we are .... and are not.

If egos were left at the door, and even a fraction of the energy spent attacking one another was channeled into attacking the evidence and working on it together, who knows how much farther along the case might be today.

You were one of the first critics, and here you still are. And I, for one, am thankful for that.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Edited November 30, 2011 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Dean Hagerman]

If egos were left at the door, and even a fraction of the energy spent attacking one another was channeled into attacking the evidence and working on it together, who knows how much farther along the case might be today.

Perfect Barb!

This is exactly what im talking about

Why cant this happen? Why cant egos be checked at the door?

We need to fight the correct fight

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Pat, Barb

The key word here is "any." My emphasis:

"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."

If Tink had put a qualifier in there you both would have a point -- "there are many facts you think are really sinister" would have been fine.

But he said "any fact which you think is really sinister."

In the context of the JFK assassination this "any fact" crack is ridiculous.

Read and listen to his entire statement ... and the context of that whole statement, Cliff. The "any fact" is connected to a whole lot more.

'Nuf.

[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.

[Pat Speer]

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it.

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports.

First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence.

But the importance of this is even greater.

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church.

My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important.

JT

The two Sheriff's Deputies admitting they'd been told of the smoke that I was able to find were McCurley (19H514) and Oxford (19H530). Is that it? Or was the second one you mentioned someone other than Oxford?

[Cliff Varnell]

Barb, with all due respect, it isn't a coincidence that the truly "sinister facts" in the case are the ones Tink pooh-poohed in SSID.

If anyone should check their ego at the door it's Tink Thompson -- who should admit that he was wrong about both the throat entrance wound and T3 back wound. This is a matter of evidence, not "theological belief."

If Tink doesn't think he was wrong, let him come forth and make a fact-based case.

But that's not going to happen. He doesn't have one.

[William Kelly]

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it.

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports.

First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence.

But the importance of this is even greater.

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church.

My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important.

JT

Why are there not interviews with the railroad men themselves?

Reports giving their names and statements rather than just reports from cops they talked to?

And as I mentioned before, these railroad men should have been questioned about seeing Oswald walk from Frazer's car to the TSBD,

and what he was carrying in his hands, as well as eyeballing the people who came out the back and side doors of the TSBD after the

assassination.

BK

JFKcountercoup

[Josiah Thompson]

Nope, Pat, those were the two. Did you mention them in your earlier post and did I, the dummy, miss your mention of them? Do you know of any more?

JT

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it.

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports.

First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence.

But the importance of this is even greater.

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church.

My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important.

JT

The two Sheriff's Deputies admitting they'd been told of the smoke that I was able to find were McCurley (19H514) and Oxford (19H530). Is that it? Or was the second one you mentioned someone other than Oxford?

[Cliff Varnell]

First, you have a problem with him using the word "any", and that if he wouldn't have used that word, you would agree with Barb and Pat.

I would agree with the statement -- "Many of the facts we deem really sinister have perfectly valid, non-sinister explanations we cannot hope to fathom or divine."

Now that is a cautionary tale.

But using the phrase "any fact" in the context of the JFK assassination is outright risible.

Then you say that the problem you have with him is :

This is exactly my beef with Tink Thompson. "In terms of proof," the case for conspiracy has been iron-clad since Vincent Salandria published in 1965.

The notion that we have to provide "better and better proof" of conspiracy is pernicious and willfully dismissive of the prima facie case for conspiracy so well made by Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi, Jim Marrs, Milicent Cranor and others.

How is that dismissive?

Kathy, the prima facie case for conspiracy in the murder of JFK is the T3 back wound. It's blatantly obvious that the SBT doesn't work with the back wound that low. It doesn't require teams of specialists to micro-analyze every scrap of evidence to determine that the SBT doesn't work and JFK was murdered by a conspiracy that was covered up at the highest levels of the US government.

In SSID Tink made a great inventory of the T3 back wound evidence and yet managed to conclude (pg 49):

"The exact location of the (back) wound cannot now be conclusively determined."

This, of course, dismisses everything he inventoried in regard to the T3 wound.

Now flash forward to 2011 and Tink claims that he is seeing "better and better proof," thereby continuing his career-long effort to deny the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Now, he needs to check his ego. I am still trying to figure out where he displayed it.

Here, for one:

His little giggle at the beginning, his sarcastic "really sinister" line, his smug condescending demeanor.

And now he wants to come off like he's hot on the case for conspiracy? 45 years after Gaeton Fonzi debunked the Single Bullet Theory in Arlen Specter's office, an ambush Fonzi planned with Vincent Salandria.

Tink, your mentor Salandria did the heavy lifting on the case for conspiracy decades ago. Check your ego at the door and admit it.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Question: has Josiah Thompson ever called a lone nutter a "wing nut?" like he did R.B. Cutler or is it just people who believe in a coup d'etat ... even if they might have some improbable theories on aspects of the case?

Having said that, I don't think anyone has a monopoly on the truth whether a lone nutter or any brand of JFK conspiracy theorist.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You've got that right, Cliff. He is here trying to "make nice" because he was caught with his pants down. He said EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANT TO SAY in that little clip, which has been widely viewed as debunking conspiracy theories generally. Read the comments on some of these posts, such as this one:

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 my take on what's going on: "JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

Barb, with all due respect, it isn't a coincidence that the truly "sinister facts" in the case are the ones Tink pooh-poohed in SSID.

If anyone should check their ego at the door it's Tink Thompson -- who should admit that he was wrong about both the throat entrance wound and T3 back wound. This is a matter of evidence, not "theological belief."

If Tink doesn't think he was wrong, let him come forth and make a fact-based case.

But that's not going to happen. He doesn't have one.

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A very peculiar performance by the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), Josiah Thompson (whose nickname is "Tink"). I hate to say “I told you so”, but I nailed Tink as working the opposite side of the street a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that, in disavowing the “double-hit” theory, he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy in the assassination, after all, just in time for the 50th observance.

"JFK, the CIA and The New York Times"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/29/jfk-the-cia-and-the-new-york-times-2/

A really nice thing happened to me last night. Given all the unhappy feelings that are being expressed in this thread I thought you all might like to know about it.

One of the facts of the assassination that gets better and better in terms of proof is the claim made by S.M. Holland and several other railroad men that at the time of the shooting they saw smoke just south of the stockade fence. This was just over the fence from the spot where Holland and others found cigarette butts and fresh footprints in the mud. This claim is made strong by the fact that the various accounts are interlocking and were given shortly after the shooting. I recalled that I had seen somewhere reports of one or more law enforcement officers that they had encountered at the scene within seconds or minutes of the shooting railroad men who had claimed to have seen smoke near the fence. I knew I had read these reports but I could not figure out where. Rather than wrestle in the mud with Professor Fetzer by defending myself from his spurious claims, I thought I would ask if anyone could direct me to these law enforcement reports.

First, Pat Speer was kind enough to take a shot at it. Unfortunately, his suggestion didn't end up helping that much. Then last night I got an email from a researcher whose work I've admired for many years. If you're dividing us up into churches, I guess he would fall into the congregation of the lone assassin believers. He has done wonderful work for decades and we never have had much contact. He suggested: "Try 19H514." I did and found the report of Deputy Sheriff A.D. McCurley who reported: "I ran over and jumped a fence and a railroad worker stated to me that he believed the smoke from the bullets came from the vicinity of a stockade fence which surrounds the park area." Since I had the vague memory of there being more than one report of this, I started reading reports in Volume 19 around this one. Soon I had a second sheriff's deputy saying basically the same thing. These reports are important evidence since they lock down the evidentiary weight of the railroad men who said they saw smoke near the fence.

But the importance of this is even greater.

I am putting together material for a book that will argue that Kennedy was shot both from the right front and from the rear. And here I get help from someone who, overall, probably would throw his cards down on the side of Oswald being the lone shooter. The most important point here is that Fetzer and his ilk can whine 'til the cows come home about someone not being loyal to the orginal mother church. However, we are not religious people having a theological debate. We are trying to do contemporary historical research. The more we help each other in that research the farther all of us get. The less time we spend on demanding loyalty oaths from our fellow inquirers the more time we'll have for real work. In the "9/11 truther" movement, we can see what happens when historical research is overtaken by zealotry. It begets schism after schism reminiscent of the history of the early church.

My experience last night was the contrast domain to what Professor Fetzer deems to be important.

JT

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer