Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

I want to thank you for being one of the voices of reason in this thread. Too many are too willing to give Tink an out NO MATTER HOW BLATANT IS HIS BETRAYAL OF THE CONSPIRACY RESEARCH COMMUNITY. I've corrected your transcription of the short, but crucial, sentence with which he ends his little travesty:

(laughing) What it means it that, if you have any fact which you think is really sinister — it's really obviously a fact which can only point to some sinister underpinning — 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.

TRANSLATION:

If you are thinking in terms of a conspiracy, FORGET IT, MAN, because you have lost your way. Belief in conspiracies is simply not rational.

Jim

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 December 1, 2011 by Pat Speer
I removed the attribution "--Tink Thompson" after Jim's translation of Thompson's statements, since it was not an actual quote and someone (not Tink) was concerned that those only browsing would think it was..

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

You got it backwards, Cliff. He is temporizing here. He won't admit his betrayal until he has finished the job.

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.

[Guest Robert Morrow]

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.

I agree completely. Vincent Salandria nailed it early on. An obvious coup d'etat; the case is not as complicated as some JFK researchers want to make it. Just look at the Zapruder film with JFK's head snap back and the holes in his coat and shirt (with the holes too low for a bullet to go through his throat) and you have a prima facie case for a coup d'etat.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

A friend who shall be nameless but who is not an enamored with Tink

as many on this forum sent me the following clip, which I am sharing.

sure, josiah, anything is possible.mov

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Unless you and Cliif can somehow overcome the simple laws of physics you lose on this point alone. Sunlight and shadow ONLY WORK ONE WAY. Simple shadow analysis of JFK's jacket in Betzner show that only a jacket with a 3" plus fold on the back can produce the image as seen in Betzner. Period. End of story. Full stop. No other arrangement of the jacket can produce this image.

You can continue this Jefferies/Varnell fantasy until the cows come home but it will never change the unimpeachable fact of the jacket fold in Betzner.

And god knows Varnell has tired, and failed.

Yet again the perfect example of the CT mindset. Thanks for sharing.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

Can't you understand that the film has been massively revised? Why don't you argue instead that just

knowing where JFK was hit in the back--for which we have ample, uncontroversial proof--that we know

there was no "magic bullet" and therefore the wounds in his throat and in Connally require other shots

and other shooters? Have you ever taken a look at "Reasoning about Assassinations", for example,

which I presented at Cambridge University and published in an international, peer-reviewed journal?

Perhaps you and I and Don--and a whole lot of others--can agree on this simple and obvious proof.

Jim

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.

I agree completely. Vincent Salandria nailed it early on. An obvious coup d'etat; the case is not as complicated as some JFK researchers want to make it. Just look at the Zapruder film with JFK's head snap back and the holes in his coat and shirt (with the holes too low for a bullet to go through his throat) and you have a prima facie case for a coup d'etat.

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

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?

What's wrong with this picture?

How about Cliff Varnell dismissing the very real properties of light and shadow that show us only a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket could produce the image we see in Betzner.

Why? Because Varnell is so invested in his silly claims he can't deal directly with the truth he has it wrong.

Sunlight and shadow work in very well defined and proven ways. Varnell's claims of the "indentation" won't work given the angles of incidence seen in Betzner. Which is why he can't offer a single proof of concept image that supports his claims. He can't because it simply won't work. And despite his rambling attempts to change the subject *which are sure to come* his position continues to fail, because he can't replicate the Betzner shadow pattern with his "indentation"

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Well, Robert, some of the CTs think the film was altered, and may not agree with your statement about the head snap. You've got 6 of one, half dozen of the other, and folks being taken to task for what they believe. I don't know how many times I have seen it written that someone is a WC supporter,or LN, because they believe in Zfilm authenticity.

When Don says there is no litmus test, ideally, there shouldn't be, but there is.

Kathy

Most JKF researchers don't think an incriminating back head snap was ADDED to the Zapruder Film - that proves to the 98% level that a shot was hitting JFK in the head from the front right. I think hundreds of millions of Americans or folks who watch the Zapruder film would agree with me.

The CT's who speak of Zapruder film alteration say things like 1) an incriminating full stop of JFK's limo was taken out 2) the back blow out of JFK's head was painted in with black. And perhaps a few more things.

No one (that I know) says that the JFK head snap "back and to the left" in Z 313+ was added.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

None of the witnesses in Dealy Plaza reported the left-and-to-the-rear head snap. David Mantik believes that

it was an artifact of the way the film was revised. Those who have seen "the other film" do not report noticing

it either. If you had read the studies of the medical, the ballistic and the photographic evidence in my books--

which you, last I noticed, did not even include in your list of books, although even Vince Bugliosi admits they

are the only "exclusively scientific" books published on the assassination (INSIDE THE ARRB comes close)--you

would know a lot more about all of this. Lamson, by the way, continues to make a fool of himself, given I long

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory. Kathy is wrong, but sorting it out requires knowledge of the medical,

ballistic, photographic and witness reports. Why don't you simply read "Reasoning about Assassinations"? OK?

Jim

Well, Robert, some of the CTs think the film was altered, and may not agree with your statement about the head snap. You've got 6 of one, half dozen of the other, and folks being taken to task for what they believe. I don't know how many times I have seen it written that someone is a WC supporter,or LN, because they believe in Zfilm authenticity.

When Don says there is no litmus test, ideally, there shouldn't be, but there is.

Kathy

Most JKF researchers don't think an incriminating back head snap was ADDED to the Zapruder Film - that proves to the 98% level that a shot was hitting JFK in the head from the front right. I think hundreds of millions of Americans or folks who watch the Zapruder film would agree with me.

The CT's who speak of Zapruder film alteration say things like 1) an incriminating full stop of JFK's limo was taken out 2) the back blow out of JFK's head was painted in with black. And perhaps a few more things.

No one (that I know) says that the JFK head snap "back and to the left" in Z 313+ was added.

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Dean Hagerman]

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?

What's wrong with this picture?

How about Cliff Varnell dismissing the very real properties of light and shadow that show us only a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket could produce the image we see in Betzner.

Why? Because Varnell is so invested in his silly claims he can't deal directly with the truth he has it wrong.

Sunlight and shadow work in very well defined and proven ways. Varnell's claims of the "indentation" won't work given the angles of incidence seen in Betzner. Which is why he can't offer a single proof of concept image that supports his claims. He can't because it simply won't work. And despite his rambling attempts to change the subject *which are sure to come* his position continues to fail, because he can't replicate the Betzner shadow pattern with his "indentation"

Cliff

Dont reply to Craig

I know your right about Betzner as do many other members

So there is no need to fight with Craig in this thread over that

This thread already has enough of that in it

[Craig Lamson]

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?

What's wrong with this picture?

How about Cliff Varnell dismissing the very real properties of light and shadow that show us only a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket could produce the image we see in Betzner.

Why? Because Varnell is so invested in his silly claims he can't deal directly with the truth he has it wrong.

Sunlight and shadow work in very well defined and proven ways. Varnell's claims of the "indentation" won't work given the angles of incidence seen in Betzner. Which is why he can't offer a single proof of concept image that supports his claims. He can't because it simply won't work. And despite his rambling attempts to change the subject *which are sure to come* his position continues to fail, because he can't replicate the Betzner shadow pattern with his "indentation"

Cliff

Dont reply to Craig

I know your right about Betzner as do many other members

So there is no need to fight with Craig in this thread over that

This thread already has enough of that in it

You don't KNOW anything Dean, but you COULD if you took the time. You say there is no fold....

PROVE IT DEAN...

If you are correct it won't be hard, just show us a simple proof of concept photos that shows ANY arrangement of fabric other than a 3"+ fold that can create the shadow pattern seen in Betzner.

Simple stuff really, unless you are in CT denial.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson, by the way, continues to make a fool of himself, given I long

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory.

Sorry Jim but you have "proven" nothing. There can be no doubt that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric in JFK's jacket in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shadow demand it. You can't change how sunlight works Jim, and you can't show us ANY other arrangement of fabric that will produce what is seen in Betzner...and then prove it with a simple proof of concept photo.

You are in complete denial.

Given the nature of this thread and the so called "demands" for honesty, why not start here Jim? Admit your error.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

This lists all the places JFK made speeches while campaigning ... several stops in Arizona on April 9, 1960, for example. This is from the JFK Library, but note it is "Part II" so there must be a "Part I" rattling around there somewhere too.

JFK campaign speeches part II

Here are the Arizona entries in this document for speeches (It also lists dinners, luncheons, etc):

0322 Address of Senator Kennedy, Democratic Dinner, Tucson, Arizona. The Democratic Party; U.S.

Economic Problems." February 22, 1958. 29pp.

0956 Address of Senator Kennedy, Phoenix, Arizona. "Natural Resource Development." April 9, 1960. 24pp.

0980 Address of Senator Kennedy, Yuma, Arizona. "High Interest Rates; Tight Money." April 9, 1960. 3pp.

0983 Address of Senator Kennedy, Democratic Luncheon, Tucson, Arizona. "National Resource

Development." April 9, 1960. 8pp.

0528 Address of Senator Kennedy, Airport, Phoenix, Arizona. "The Importance of the 1960 Presidential \

Election." Novembers, 1960. 3pp.

0531 Address of Senator Kennedy, Westward Ho Hotel, Phoenix, Arizona. "The Importance of the 1960 v

Presidential Election." Novembers, 1960. 2pp.

0533 Address of Senator Kennedy, Street Rally, Phoenix, Arizona. "Criticism of the Republican Party."

Novembers, 1960. 9pp.

This should help anyone interested in chasing down the Arizona allegation. Easier to locate news stories with dates in hand.There should be a similar document at the JFK library that covers all his travels once President.

Barb :-)

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Read "Reasoning about Assassinations". Films can be faked, but the holes align with the wound in the body. I can't believe that you spend years promoting complete and total rubbish long since refuted!

The common complaint about JFK research is that it has not appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Here's a study that not only appears in a peer-reviewed journal but was actually presented at Cambridge.

Lamson, by the way, continues to make a fool of himself, given I long

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory.

Sorry Jim but you have "proven" nothing. There can be no doubt that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric in JFK's jacket in Betzner. The unbendable laws of light and shadow demand it. You can't change how sunlight works Jim, and you can't show us ANY other arrangement of fabric that will produce what is seen in Betzner...and then prove it with a simple proof of concept photo.

You are in complete denial.

Given the nature of this thread and the so called "demands" for honesty, why not start here Jim? Admit your error.

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

A friend who shall be nameless but who is not an enamored with Tink

as many on this forum sent me the following clip, which I am sharing.

Jim, you need to make up your mind. That clip is of Thompson MOCKING those who, even in the face of evidence there was more than one shooter, refuse to believe a conspiracy is likely.

You can't have it both ways. Does Thompson think conspiracies are possible, and in this case, likely, as he claims, or is he some anti-history zealot believing conspiracies don't exist, but willing to pretend he does, for years and years and years?

P.S. If you had read the comments on the recent Daily Mail article on that terrible Nat Geo program, you'd have found that the vast majority of readers and voters found the images on the Zapruder film evidence for a conspiracy, and that very few cited the alteration of the Zapruder film as evidence of anything. FYI

Edited November 30, 2011 by Pat Speer