Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 don't know why you are making demands on him, is he not supposed to do research on anything because someone researched before him? Why does that bother you so much?

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.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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...