Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 by Pat Speer
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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by James H. Fetzer
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?

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"

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...