Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Josiah Thompson]

There are Bill. There are both statements and interviews of men with Holland on the Triple Overpass. Several of these men observed the smoke near the fence. Since these are simply guys who gathered there to see the President come by after, say, 11:30 AM, there is no reason to believe they would have observed the back of the Depository earlier.

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

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

[Pat Speer]

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?

I had looked it up, and found those two, but didn't want to post it until I had the time to read through more of the statements. So you missed nothing. Unfortunately, I let myself get side-tracked by some of the nonsense in this thread.

You spent six hours talking to Errol Morris. Did you get the feeling he was out to make all CTs look wacky? I've seen most of his movies and have read many of his articles and interviews, and doubt he'd be interested in doing a hit-piece on CTs. Most of his films and articles deal with the blurriness of our existence, and the elusive nature of truth. As a consequence, I suspect he's mostly interested in the "unknowable" and the attempts of some to know it anyhow, and not in telling the American people what to think.

Am I on the right track? Or did he seem to have an agenda?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Barb Junkkarinen]

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.

Did you, per chance, actually read what Tink said below before posting this? He also said it earlier in the thread. Tink disavowing a double hit? ROTFL You may have nailed something here alright....

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

[Josiah Thompson]

Yes, Pat. I think you are right on target. I think Errol Morris is an odd kind of genius. In terms of filmmaking, he's clearly a genius. Just take a look at "Gates of Heaven" or "Thin Blue Line" or "The Fog of War." But unlike many geniuses or most geniuses, he's also a really smart guy. I think what you said is basically correct. When you said the "blurriness of our existence" you said something he would clearly approve of.

And while we're talking of things blurry, I gotta disclose something that shows just how blurry my own head is after all these years. The guy who gave me the good steer to the two deputy sheriffs just emailed me. He found quotes from both of them on pages 119 and 120 of a book published ages ago. The book was called "Six Seconds in Dallas." Am I an idiot or what!!

JT

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?

I had looked it up, and found those two, but didn't want to post it until I had the time to read through more of the statements. So you missed nothing. Unfortunately, I let myself get side-tracked by some of the nonsense in this thread.

You spent six hours talking to Errol Morris. Did you get the feeling he was out to make all CTs look wacky? I've seen most of his movies and have read many of his articles and interviews, and doubt he'd be interested in doing a hit-piece on CTs. Most of his films and articles deal with the blurriness of our existence, and the elusive nature of truth. As a consequence, I suspect he's mostly interested in the "unknowable" and the attempts of some to know it anyhow, and not in telling the American people what to think.

Am I on the right track? Or did he seem to have an agenda?

[Cliff Varnell]

I think you are reading alot into this. I don't see him as condescending.

Your posts are ascerbic, and I wonder if you have had a chance to see how condescending you appear.

I impress you as condescending but Tink doesn't?

I don't know why you are making demands on him, is he not supposed to do research on anything because someone researched before him?

Tink made statements regarding the back and throat wounds in SSID that are inaccurate. He won't defend what he wrote and he won't correct it.

Seems like that makes someone fair game for criticism, doesn't it?

I'm sorry, Kathy, but I don't follow that second bit. What do you mean "do research on anything because someone researched before him?"

I'm taking him to task for pretending that the back wound and the throat wound don't already make the case for conspiracy, and his mis-representation of that evidence in his best-selling book is egregious.

Tink will not admit he was wrong about the throat and back wounds in SSID. Simple as that.

Why does that bother you so much?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

People who habitually mis-represent the evidence in the JFK assassination deserve to have the errors of their arguments pointed out. No?

Something else is going on here, IMO. You are stepping on everything he says. I just can't believe you'd be talking like this if it were just the show. You must have disliked him before.

You can try to make this a personal matter all you want, but it's really just about the evidence. In SSID Tink made a great list of the evidence of the T3 back wound -- and then turned around and declared the issue unsettled.

That conclusion in the face of the evidence he presented was ridiculous.

His arguments concerning the throat wound in SSID are even more preposterous.

And yet now in 2011 Tink won't actually argue against the T3 back wound or the throat entrance wound -- he'll just continue to pretend that those issues are unresolved, and make smug assertions about the laughable nature of "sinister facts" in the JFK assassination.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

No Jim, Tink's going to ride to the rescue and present a sterling case for conspiracy in time for the 50th.

Too bad he won't check his ego and the door and admit that Vincent Salandria made the best case for conspiracy 40 odd years ago.

[Don Jeffries]

This is a very simple matter for some of us. Josiah Thompson is one of the very few people in the JFK assassination research community who have access to a director like Errol Morris or a public platform like The New York Times. As such, whatever he says on this subject is obviously going to be analyzed and scrutinized by those of us who are still so intrigued by it.

I suspect that Morris must have made his feelings on the subject known to Tink at some point during their lengthy interview. Tink didn't tell us what Morris's beliefs are, but I'm venturing a very strong guess that he's a lone nutter. Tink must know by now that the Times has a clear pro-lone nutter bias, so he was in effect being interviewed about the JFK assassination by an LNer, who subsequently saw that a selected portion of the interview was published in a newspaper that has never been friendly to any CTer. Perception is everything here, and regardless of what Tink's overall beliefs are regarding the JFK assassination, anyone reading that interview would assume that he (and Morris) are lone nutters, like all the other "respectable" people who speak about the subject in the msm.

We've been around and around before here on the subject of any supposed litmus test for CTers. I'm certainly not suggesting there be any such test, but I do question why so many CTers have backed off from perfectly reasonable indications of conspiracy, when no real evidence has ever emerged to cast doubt upon them. Have we ever heard of a single lone nutter backing away from some previously held LN belief? In the same vein, while we've seen a plethora of miraculous conversions from CTer to LNer over the past few decades, there has never been a notable example, to my knowledge, of an LNer suddenly believing in conspiracy. Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

I do thank Tink for participating in this thread, and reasserting his belief in conspiracy. However, I'm curious as to why a firm LNer would point him towards testimony indicating smoke behind the fence. To most reasonable people, that would suggest gunfire from that area, especially when considered in conjunction with eyewitness testimony and other evidence. Who knows- maybe this will cause this anonymous researcher to examine his own views and become the first known convert to the cause of conspiracy.

[Cliff Varnell]

Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

Bingo! And this is especially true in regards to the back and throat wounds.

In SSID Tink ceded ground on the cardinal facts of the case with arguments he's embarrassed to make today. He has always dismissed certain "sinister facts" re back/throat wounds and now he turns up on the NYT to pooh-pooh the very notion of "sinister facts".

What's wrong with this picture?

[Cliff Varnell]

Can I say, hold it up a minute?

Because Tink did this--what I consider--mistaken bit on the Umbrella Man, why are you using that to jump down his throat for what is in SSD, which was published forty years ago, and saying he is now going to jump out of the closet as a LN for the fiftieth?

I don't get the connection.

Jim, I'm not sure if you are referring this to me or not, but since I am jumping down Tink's throat about what is in SSID I'll go ahead and address your points.

1) In SSID Tink said that the location of the back wound was unknown and he speculated that the throat wound was caused by a bone fragment exiting from the head shot.

Now, as you know, Jim, any fact-based discussion of the evidence resolves the issues at hand -- JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra, and shot in the throat from the front.

These are sinister facts for which there is no "perfectly valid, non-sinister explanations."

Having spent his career denying these significant facts, now Tink is going on the NYT to make snide remarks about "sinister facts"?

I call foul.

2) On the 50th I predict Tink is going to present a masterwork of conspiracy research that will be trumpeted by his acolytes as THE final "best evidence" of conspiracy.

It's a process I call "bouncing the rubble."

Edited November 30, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

This is a very simple matter for some of us. Josiah Thompson is one of the very few people in the JFK assassination research community who have access to a director like Errol Morris or a public platform like The New York Times. As such, whatever he says on this subject is obviously going to be analyzed and scrutinized by those of us who are still so intrigued by it.

I suspect that Morris must have made his feelings on the subject known to Tink at some point during their lengthy interview. Tink didn't tell us what Morris's beliefs are, but I'm venturing a very strong guess that he's a lone nutter. Tink must know by now that the Times has a clear pro-lone nutter bias, so he was in effect being interviewed about the JFK assassination by an LNer, who subsequently saw that a selected portion of the interview was published in a newspaper that has never been friendly to any CTer. Perception is everything here, and regardless of what Tink's overall beliefs are regarding the JFK assassination, anyone reading that interview would assume that he (and Morris) are lone nutters, like all the other "respectable" people who speak about the subject in the msm.

We've been around and around before here on the subject of any supposed litmus test for CTers. I'm certainly not suggesting there be any such test, but I do question why so many CTers have backed off from perfectly reasonable indications of conspiracy, when no real evidence has ever emerged to cast doubt upon them. Have we ever heard of a single lone nutter backing away from some previously held LN belief? In the same vein, while we've seen a plethora of miraculous conversions from CTer to LNer over the past few decades, there has never been a notable example, to my knowledge, of an LNer suddenly believing in conspiracy. Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

I do thank Tink for participating in this thread, and reasserting his belief in conspiracy. However, I'm curious as to why a firm LNer would point him towards testimony indicating smoke behind the fence. To most reasonable people, that would suggest gunfire from that area, especially when considered in conjunction with eyewitness testimony and other evidence. Who knows- maybe this will cause this anonymous researcher to examine his own views and become the first known convert to the cause of conspiracy.

Don, I think you are incorrect on a number of points. First, that no LNer becomes a CT. It's just not true. I leaned CT most of my life, but never really looked at the case till the early 90's. I then became a fairly typical CT--I believed the fatal head shot came from the front, and that the autopsy photos had been altered, etc. I then read the Warren Report and Case Closed. After doing so, I leaned LN, and would have identified myself as one if asked. I still had a few questions, however. These questions, then, led me to at first read a number of negative reviews of Case Closed, and then do some serious research concerning the medical evidence. This research, in turn, led me to my current position--that there is tons of gobbledygook and mumbo jumbo on both sides of the LN/CT divide, but that there is enough significant stuff on the CT side to make me conclude there was a conspiracy. My subsequent research has only strengthened that position.

As far as your concerns regarding some long-time CTs dropping some of their core beliefs...I think it is a good thing the argument for conspiracy has been whittled down. A very good thing. One of the attractions of books like Case Closed, or of websites like McAdams' or Reitzes', is that they cut through some of the CT nonsense. Too many CT arguments are based on the statements of one or two people years after the shooting. Quite often these statements contradict the previous statements of these witnesses, or make little sense when one studies the bigger picture. These arguments need to be scrapped, IMO, if we are to maintain any pretense of being logical and consistent. I mean, if we are gonna discredit or discount some or all of the statements of Brennan, Bledsoe, Norman, etc, we should do the same for inconsistent witnesses more friendly to the CT position.

As far as your distrust of firm LNers, I guess you haven't met the right LNers. Some of them, including a few of those on this forum, are more than willing to help out on questions regarding the official record. They are not the enemy, IMO. What's that they said in that old comic strip? "We have met the enemy and he is us..."

Edited November 30, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Viklund]

This is a very simple matter for some of us. Josiah Thompson is one of the very few people in the JFK assassination research community who have access to a director like Errol Morris or a public platform like The New York Times. As such, whatever he says on this subject is obviously going to be analyzed and scrutinized by those of us who are still so intrigued by it.

I suspect that Morris must have made his feelings on the subject known to Tink at some point during their lengthy interview. Tink didn't tell us what Morris's beliefs are, but I'm venturing a very strong guess that he's a lone nutter. Tink must know by now that the Times has a clear pro-lone nutter bias, so he was in effect being interviewed about the JFK assassination by an LNer, who subsequently saw that a selected portion of the interview was published in a newspaper that has never been friendly to any CTer. Perception is everything here, and regardless of what Tink's overall beliefs are regarding the JFK assassination, anyone reading that interview would assume that he (and Morris) are lone nutters, like all the other "respectable" people who speak about the subject in the msm.

We've been around and around before here on the subject of any supposed litmus test for CTers. I'm certainly not suggesting there be any such test, but I do question why so many CTers have backed off from perfectly reasonable indications of conspiracy, when no real evidence has ever emerged to cast doubt upon them. Have we ever heard of a single lone nutter backing away from some previously held LN belief? In the same vein, while we've seen a plethora of miraculous conversions from CTer to LNer over the past few decades, there has never been a notable example, to my knowledge, of an LNer suddenly believing in conspiracy. Every time a CTer gives ground without cause on some of these points, imho, it fuels the feeling among casual observers that the overall case for conspiracy isn't as strong.

I do thank Tink for participating in this thread, and reasserting his belief in conspiracy. However, I'm curious as to why a firm LNer would point him towards testimony indicating smoke behind the fence. To most reasonable people, that would suggest gunfire from that area, especially when considered in conjunction with eyewitness testimony and other evidence. Who knows- maybe this will cause this anonymous researcher to examine his own views and become the first known convert to the cause of conspiracy.

Don, I think you are incorrect on a number of points. First, that no LNer becomes a CT. It's just not true. I leaned CT most of my life, but never really looked at the case till the early 90's. I then became a fairly typical CT--I believed the fatal head shot came from the front, and that the autopsy photos had been altered, etc. I then read the Warren Report and Case Closed. After doing so, I leaned LN, and would have identified myself as one if asked. I still had a few questions, however. These questions, then, led me to at first read a number of negative reviews of Case Closed, and then do some serious research concerning the medical evidence. This research, in turn, led me to my current position--that there is tons of gobbledygook and mumbo jumbo on both sides of the LN/CT divide, but that there is enough significant stuff on the CT side to make me conclude there was a conspiracy. My subsequent research has only strengthened that position.

As far as your concerns regarding some long-time CTs dropping some of their core beliefs...I think it is a good thing the argument for conspiracy has been whittled down. A very good thing. One of the attractions of books like Case Closed, or of websites like McAdams' or Reitzes', is that they cut through some of the CT nonsense. Too many CT arguments are based on the statements of one or two people years after the shooting. Quite often these statements contradict the previous statements of these witnesses, or make little sense when one studies the bigger picture. These arguments need to be scrapped, IMO, if we are to maintain any pretense of being logical and consistent. I mean, if we are gonna discredit or discount some or all of the statements of Brennan, Bledsoe, Norman, etc, we should do the same for inconsistent witnesses more friendly to the CT position.

As far as your distrust of firm LNers, I guess you haven't met the right LNers. Some of them, including a few of those on this forum, are more than willing to help out on questions regarding the official record. They are not the enemy, IMO. What's that they said in that old comic strip? "We have met the enemy and he is us..."

Thank you, Pat. That's an interesting description and I can certainly see some similarities to my own thinking. If I may ask - what's your take on Oswald?

Personally, I've come to realize that it is very difficult to have a distinct opinion before two areas has been sorted out about this: What exactly happened at the Dealey Plaza, number of shots fired and the shooting sequence. And the medical evidence, which I find extremely hard to understand and with lots of contradicting facts.

[Don Jeffries]

Pat,

I can certainly understand how you (or anyone else) could be an LNer if your first real introduction to the subject was "Case Closed" or "Reclaiming History." However, someone who has read even one of the really good conspiracy books would realize instantly how intellectually dishonest all Warren Report apologists are.

To accept the LN line of thought, one has to dismiss the vast majority of eyewitness testimony. One has to innocently accept the gravest errors in legal procedure, from chain-of-possession of virtually all evidence to the destruction of the crime scene (limousine) to lost or mutilated evidence. One has to swallow that normal procedures were somehow, in this case, just routinely avoided by officials at all levels. One has to accept that the brightest legal minds in the country just happened to not identify crucial witnesses like TUM or the Babushka Lady, failed to obtain an untold amount of film from eyewitnesses, neglected to take the testimony of the most important witnesses imaginable (like Admiral Burkley), yet tracked down and deposed irrelevant people like the infant Oswald's babysitter. This was not a benign coverup. Powerful people don't do those sorts of things to protect some minimum wage earning "lone nut."

So I don't respect any lone nutter who has truly looked at the evidence, because the evidence leads any rational person to conclude that the official story is impossible. Of course, I'll defend their right to believe any fairy tale they want, but I certainly won't give such nonsense any credence. As Cliff Varnell points out constantly on this forum, the holes in JFK's clothing alone prove that Oswald, or anyone else, couldn't have done it. There is no reasonable doubt here, and it troubles me when CTers act like there is. Your average preschool class could figure out that Oswald was innocent. What Harold Weisberg, Sylvia Meagher and others demonstrated so vividly was that the official record, in contradiction of its conclusions, proves that Oswald was not the assassin. The coverup was transparent and meant to be exposed, as Vincent Salandria stated many years ago. This isn't rocket science, and CTers shouldn't be acting as if the case is more complex than it is.

The evidence demonstrates that JFK was hit from both the front and the rear, and that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The evidence shows that the Secret Service agents sworn to protect JFK inexplicably failed to do so. There has been a tremendously powerful coverup of the facts surrounding the assassination, which continues to this day. All organs of the mainstream media are party to this coverup. No one who studies the facts and knows all this can honestly be converted to a lone nutter, or fail to believe in conspiracy.

[Greg Parker]

For those troubled by yet another rift, the solution to getting all reasonable people on the same page is not all that difficult.

Witt's credibility is embedded squarely on his story about JFK being heckled by umbrella welding protesters in Arizona. All that has to be done is prove or disprove this ever happened.

I have not been able to find anything even close in google newspaper archives. but I cannot be sure that holds all papers that may have covered such a story.

The pity is that the HSCA could easily have checked this story out, as could Tink - who certainly had the capacity and knowhow from being a PI. Instead, he followed the lead of the HSCA and accepted the story on face value. Surely this lassitude can now be rectified?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Greg Burnham]

Greg & Lee,

This is all I have found regarding trips JFK made to Arizona. I did not check it for accuracy nor did I verify it. However, the information in it could potentially be a place to start looking for more. Of course, I haven't found any reference to various "Umbrella Men" greeting him in the state at any time.

John F. Kennedy's Unique Ties to Arizona

by Brian Webb

PHOENIX - As the world gets a look at the life of Jacqueline Kennedy through newly released audio tapes, we're remembering John F. Kennedy's ties to Arizona.

We know of at least three trips JFK made to our state over the years.

The first was in the 1930s, when he came to work on a ranch near Benson in southern Arizona.

His last trip was in November of 1961. By then he was president. [my emphasis]

But in the 1940s, the unknown sailor came to the Valley to spend a month at the Camelback Inn.

He was here to heal in the dry desert air after being injured at sea during World War II.

“Some of our associates still talk about it,” said Shane Allor, a sales manager at the Paradise Valley hotel.

There is even a picture of a shirtless Kennedy playing a board game at the pool with two unknown women.

That pool used to be in front of the main building, but has since been turned into a terrace.

And nobody seems to know which room JFK stayed in while he was there, although it was probably one of the rooms to the west side of the main building, because they were the first ones built.

After Kennedy’s month long stay at the Camelback Inn he spent more time at the hot springs near Wickenburg.

====

There is a video clip about these visits at this link:

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/john-f.-kennedy's-unique-ties-to-arizona

Edited November 30, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Burnham]

Turns out the date of JFK's last trip to Arizona (Phoenix) was November 17, 1961 for anyone who wants to continue researching "Umbrella Men" who allegedly protested JFK there. I have found no reference to anything of the sort in my voluminous archive, but I'll keep looking. Also, here are two photos from that trip. Can you see any "Umbrella Men" ??? I can't.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Greg Burnham