Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tink Thompson has already publicly re-confirmed his belief there was a conspiracy, in post 24 of this very thread.

In case you missed it, this is what he said:

"When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new."

Question: does Tink Thompson think that the fact of conspiracy was established by the first generation of researchers, or has the world been waiting breathlessly for Tink Thompson to make this case himself?

Anyone who thinks the former is false is unfamiliar with the basic facts of the case, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

"Not being so cock sure" -- I like the way you and Pat Speer are re-writing what Tink said. Unfortunately, it doesn't bear on either Tink's words or his tone. "Not being so cock sure" is a qualifying phrase, and there are no such qualifications in what Tink said.

The contempt the man exudes with the phrase "really sinister" betrays an inappropriate, condescending attitude.

There are lots and lots of "sinister facts" in the JFK assassination with no "valid non-sinister explanation". I notice Tink never goes near them. I think this video needs to be appreciated in the context of Tink Thompson's life-long dismissal of the root facts of the case -- JFK was shot in the back at T3, and shot in the throat from the front.

There are no "perfectly valid, non-sinister explanations" for the root facts of the case. If Tink thinks there is, let him make a fact-based case for it.

And we all know that such will never be fore-coming.

Here is how I read the quote, Cliff, when taken in the context of the entire film.

QUOTE TINK THOMPSON (my insertions in bold)

If you have any fact which you think is really sinister, (and you are totally convinced) it's really obviously a fact that can only point to some sinister underpinning, hey,THINK AGAIN, 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

To read it any other way is wacky, IMO. No researcher, let alone a prominent conspiracy theorist and private detective like Thompson, would EVER, in a million years, claim NOTHING sinister ever happens, or that all sinister facts have an innocent explanation.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to know I've been onto something for a while now...

Never did think his head ever moved forward....

and now what's worse, people like Altgens who say they SAW the forward motion are even more suspect....

Mr. ALTGENS - Yes. What made me almost certain that the shot came from behind was because at the time I was looking at the President, just as he was struck, it caused him to move a bit forward. He seemed as if at the time----well, he was in a position-- sort of immobile. He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down. There was flesh particles that flew out of the side of his head in my direction from where I was standing, so much so that it indicated to me that the shot came out of the left side of his head. Also, the fact that his head was covered with blood, the hairline included, on the left side all the way down, with no blood on his forehead or face--- suggested to me, too, that the shot came from the opposite side, meaning in the direction of this Depository Building, but at no time did I know for certain where the shot came from.

JFKHeadmovement.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Barb Junkkarinen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18412&view=findpost&p=239486

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?

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

Edited by Kathy Beckett
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...