Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Craig Lamson]

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.

CT's have spent YEARS debating the location of the wounds Jim, and you know that. Not a single one of you can prove the exact location and you also know that. Your speculation continues unabated.

So unless you can prove that Betzner is somehow faked (and you have failed every time you attempt to prove ANY photgraph has been faked) you simple lose.

Wanna try again?

Edited November 30, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I have expanded on one of the final paragraphs to make my position conspicuous:

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. That we have good reasons to believe that Witt was there, however, does not excuse his suspicious activities and association with the Cuban. That the Secret Service would allow them to act that way in close proximity to the president is one more indication–along with more than 15 others–of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit. While Robert Morrow and I may not completely agree on the activities of the Umbrella man, we converge in our conclusions about the role of Josiah Thompson in this shabby affair; and for that reason, I want to give him the last word for this round of what may well turn out to be the most elaborate CIA cum New York Times disinformation campaign in history:

Read "Reasoning about Assassinations" and see whether we can agree about that.

Jim

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?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If we know anything about the assassination, we know where JFK was hit in the back, as I have proven

in "Reasoning about Assassinations". Q.E.D. If you contest my arguments, it is incumbent upon you

to show what I have wrong. The evidence I present is comprehensive, multifaceted, and conclusive. So

if you think that my proof is lacking, show us exactly in what respect. You are a fraud. Put up or shut up.

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.

CT's have spent YEARS debating the location of the wounds Jim, and you know that. Not a single one of you can prove the exact location and you also know that. Your speculation continues unabated.

So unless you can prove that Betzner is somehow faked (and you have failed every time you attempt to prove ANY photgraph has been faked) you simple lose.

Wanna try again?

[Craig Lamson]

If we know anything about the assassination, we know where JFK was hit in the back, as I have proven

in "Reasoning about Assassinations". Q.E.D. If you contest my arguments, it is incumbent upon you

to show what I have wrong. The evidence I present is comprehensive, multifaceted, and conclusive. So

if you think that my proof is lacking, show us exactly in what respect. You are a fraud. Put up or shut up.

There are a number of threads on this very forum where I show in an unimpeachable manner that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on JFK's back as seen in Betzner and Croft This is not speculation but instead it is fact based on the unbending properties of light and shadow. No one has ever been able to offer a different arrangement of the fabric of JFK's jacket that can produce what see in these photos not produce the shadow seen in Betzner. This is UNIMPEACHABLE Jim.

Since you have FAILED to include this unimpeachable evidence into you speculative conclusions they are not by any stretch of the imagination...comprehensive, multifaceted nor conclusive.

[Pat Speer]

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.

CT's have spent YEARS debating the location of the wounds Jim, and you know that. Not a single one of you can prove the exact location and you also know that. Your speculation continues unabated.

So unless you can prove that Betzner is somehow faked (and you have failed every time you attempt to prove ANY photgraph has been faked) you simple lose.

Wanna try again?

What you miss, Craig, is that the location of the back wound, as INTERPRETED by the last medical panel to study the evidence, was at a location higher on the body than the throat wound, and that they only signed off on the single-bullet theory under the belief Kennedy had leaned forward while behind the sign--something even most LNs agree did not happen.

In other words, the back wound location--as officially interpreted--all by itself demonstrates the likelihood of conspiracy, even without the assistance of the clothing holes.

So unless you somehow get the government to convene a new panel to correct their interpretation, you "simple lose."

Edited November 30, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Craig Lamson]

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.

CT's have spent YEARS debating the location of the wounds Jim, and you know that. Not a single one of you can prove the exact location and you also know that. Your speculation continues unabated.

So unless you can prove that Betzner is somehow faked (and you have failed every time you attempt to prove ANY photgraph has been faked) you simple lose.

Wanna try again?

What you miss, Craig, is that the location of the back wound, as INTERPRETED by the last medical panel to study the evidence, was at a location higher on the body than the throat wound, and that they only signed off on the single-bullet theory under the belief Kennedy had leaned forward while behind the sign--something even most LNs agree did not happen.

In other words, the back wound location--as officially interpreted--all by itself demonstrates the likelihood of conspiracy, even without the assistance of the clothing holes.

So unless you somehow get the government to convene a new panel to correct their interpretation, you "simple lose."

As I've stated ...more than once... I really don't give a fig nor do I have a speculative "guess" (like the rest of you do} about the actual location of the wound. And of course without exhuming the body none of you will ever really know. Thus you speculate.

What I have stated, quite correctly and unimpeachablly I might add, is that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as late as the time stamp of the Betzner photo. Is that really so hard for you to understand Pat? I guess it is because the only way I can simply lose is for someone to provide a proof of concept photo that shows the shadow detail asa in seen in Betzner using any arrangement of fabric other than a 3"+ fold.

I'm still waiting....

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson, you are offering more reasons in support of my characterization of you. Photos

can be faked. There is nothing to show that this photo is not faked. But consider the following:

(1) JFK wore custom-tailored shirts and jackets, which tend not to bunch. A photo showing them to

be bunched is therefore, with high probably, not authentic. Besides, we also know on the basis of

some half-dozen or more independent arguments that the holes in the shirt and jacket align with the

wound in the body. But since that would not be true if they were bunched, they were not bunched.

(2) Suppose that the photo were authentic. Then it should be the case that the holes in the shirt

and jacket are actually lower than the wound in the body. But we know from a half-dozen more more

independent arguments that the holes in the shirt and the jacket align with the wound in the body.

What this means is that the photo is irrelevant, given that the holes align with the body wound.

If you want to get serious instead of farting around, which you have been doing here for years and

years, then explain my argument and the evidence I advance to support it and show what I have wrong.

The traditional standard of scholarship in academia is to respond to a peer-reviewed and published

article with your own peer-reviewed and published rebuttal. I will settle for this lesser standard.

If we know anything about the assassination, we know where JFK was hit in the back, as I have proven

in "Reasoning about Assassinations". Q.E.D. If you contest my arguments, it is incumbent upon you

to show what I have wrong. The evidence I present is comprehensive, multifaceted, and conclusive. So

if you think that my proof is lacking, show us exactly in what respect. Put up or shut up.

There are a number of threads on this very forum where I show in an unimpeachable manner that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on JFK's back as seen in Betzner and Croft This is not speculation but instead it is fact based on the unbending properties of light and shadow. No one has ever been able to offer a different arrangement of the fabric of JFK's jacket that can produce what see in these photos not produce the shadow seen in Betzner. This is UNIMPEACHABLE Jim.

Since you have FAILED to include this unimpeachable evidence into you speculative conclusions they are not by any stretch of the imagination...comprehensive, multifaceted nor conclusive.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Kathy Beckett
removed more ad hom

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If that were the case, then JFK must have adjusted his shirt and jacket, because the holes in the

shirt and jacket align with the wound in the body, which has been proven by at half-dozen or more

independent arguments. So if you want to make your case, you are going to have to come to grips

with the evidence instead of blowing smoke on the basis of a photograph that makes no difference.

There is nothing "speculative" about my proof, which is supported by the autopsy diagram, Sibert

and O'Neill's diagram, Berkeley's death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and Thomas Evan

Robinson's description of the wound. We also know--as David Mantik has proven--that the official

trajectory is not even anatomically possible and that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the wound redescribed

to make the "major bullet" theory more plausible. None of this is speculation. I have presented all

of this in "Reasoning about Assassinations". The case has been proven. You are trading in fantasies.

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

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory.

...

As I've stated ...more than once... I really don't give a fig nor do I have a speculative "guess" (like the rest of you do} about the actual location of the wound. And of course without exhuming the body none of you will ever really know. Thus you speculate.

What I have stated, quite correctly and unimpeachablly I might add, is that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as late as the time stamp of the Betzner photo. Is that really so hard for you to understand Pat? I guess it is because the only way I can simply lose is for someone to provide a proof of concept photo that shows the shadow detail asa in seen in Betzner using any arrangement of fabric other than a 3"+ fold.

I'm still waiting....

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If you want to get serious instead of farting around, which you have been doing here for years and

years, then explain my argument and the evidence I advance to support it and show what I have wrong.

The traditional standard of scholarship in academia is to respond to a peer-reviewed and published

article with your own peer-reviewed and published rebuttal. I will settle for this much lesser standard.

Anyone with a sense of self-respect would be embarrassed to peddle such twaddle, much less for years.

It doesn't matter if you have a photo showing bunching, since we know that the holes and wound are

in alignment. If that were the case, then JFK must have adjusted his shirt and jacket, because the

holes in the shirt and jacket align with the wound, which has been proven by at half-dozen or more

independent arguments. So if you want to make your case, you are going to have to come to grips

with the evidence instead of blowing smoke on the basis of a photograph that makes no difference.

There is nothing "speculative" about my proof, which is supported by the autopsy diagram, Sibert

and O'Neill's diagram, Berkeley's death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and Thomas Evan

Robinson's description of the wound. We also know--as David Mantik has proven--that the official

trajectory is not even anatomically possible and that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the wound redescribed

to make the "major bullet" theory more plausible. None of this is speculation. I have presented

it in "Reasoning about Assassinations". The case has been proven. You are trading in fantasies.

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

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory.

...

As I've stated ...more than once... I really don't give a fig nor do I have a speculative "guess" (like the rest of you do} about the actual location of the wound. And of course without exhuming the body none of you will ever really know. Thus you speculate.

What I have stated, quite correctly and unimpeachablly I might add, is that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as late as the time stamp of the Betzner photo. Is that really so hard for you to understand Pat? I guess it is because the only way I can simply lose is for someone to provide a proof of concept photo that shows the shadow detail asa in seen in Betzner using any arrangement of fabric other than a 3"+ fold.

I'm still waiting....

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

If that were the case, then JFK must have adjusted his shirt and jacket, because the holes in the

shirt and jacket align with the wound in the body, which has been proven by at half-dozen or more

independent arguments. So if you want to make your case, you are going to have to come to grips

with the evidence instead of blowing smoke on the basis of a photograph that makes no difference.

He "adjusted" his coat and shirt? Oh man, you really are at a loss. Can you point us to anything that shows this happened? And despite your claim the contrary the location of the wound has been debated for 48 years.

There is nothing "speculative" about my proof, which is supported by the autopsy diagram, Sibert

and O'Neill's diagram, Berkeley's death certificate, the reenactment photographs, and Thomas Evan

Robinson's description of the wound. We also know--as David Mantik has proven--that the official

trajectory is not even anatomically possible and that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had the wound redescribed

to make the "major bullet" theory more plausible. None of this is speculation. I have presented

it in "Reasoning about Assassinations". The case has been proven. You are trading in fantasies.

Trading in fantasies? Now that takes the cake coming from you. You can't show the jacket was not folded, and in fact unimpeachable evidence shows it WAS folded as late as Betzner. You falsely dismiss this fold as part of your speculative conclusion for the location of the wound. And yes your conclusion IS speculitive and the location IS debatable. In fact the only way anyone will ever really know is to look at the body again.

You offer no proof Jim, as usual, and you didn't have a complete grasp of the facts until just now. And them to make it worse you cough up this little gem:

"

then JFK must have adjusted his shirt and jacket"

Talk about a fantasy world! Whats next? You gonna tell us the Zapruder film is a cartoon? ROFLMAO!

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

since refuted the "jacket bunched" theory.

...

As I've stated ...more than once... I really don't give a fig nor do I have a speculative "guess" (like the rest of you do} about the actual location of the wound. And of course without exhuming the body none of you will ever really know. Thus you speculate.

What I have stated, quite correctly and unimpeachablly I might add, is that there is a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket as late as the time stamp of the Betzner photo. Is that really so hard for you to understand Pat? I guess it is because the only way I can simply lose is for someone to provide a proof of concept photo that shows the shadow detail asa in seen in Betzner using any arrangement of fabric other than a 3"+ fold.

I'm still waiting....

[Craig Lamson]

If you want to get serious instead of farting around, which you have been doing here for years and

years, then explain my argument and the evidence I advance to support it and show what I have wrong.

The traditional standard of scholarship in academia is to respond to a peer-reviewed and published

article with your own peer-reviewed and published rebuttal. I will settle for this much lesser standard.

Anyone with a sense of self-respect would be embarrassed to peddle such twaddle, much less for years.

How many of your "peers" knew there really was a 3"+ fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner.

And yes you should be embarrassed that you "peddle such twaddle".

[Pat Speer]

Although the back wound location has been debated for 48 years, Craig, that doesn't help those holding the single-bullet theory is viable. You see, the only real argument is whether the back wound was at the level of Kennedy's throat wound--where it is already too low to support the single-bullet trajectory--or even lower. No credible "experts" hold it to be where it would need to be to support the single-bullet theory, and where most LNs place it. Most LNs, in fact, defer to the brilliance of Dr. John Lattimer when trying to support the back wound location they find necessary to support their single-bullet fantasy. You know, John Lattimer, the guy who insisted the back wound was 5 1/2 inches down from the base of Kennedy's skull, at the level of his chin...

Now, Craig, I think even you would have to agree that a bullet wound 5 1/2 inches below the base of Kennedy's skull would be much much lower on his body than the level of his chin...

[Craig Lamson]

Although the back wound location has been debated for 48 years, Craig, that doesn't help those holding the single-bullet theory is viable. You see, the only real argument is whether the back wound was at the level of Kennedy's throat wound--where it is already too low to support the single-bullet trajectory--or even lower. No credible "experts" hold it to be where it would need to be to support the single-bullet theory, and where most LNs place it. Most LNs, in fact, defer to the brilliance of Dr. John Lattimer when trying to support the back wound location they find necessary to support their single-bullet fantasy. You know, John Lattimer, the guy who insisted the back wound was 5 1/2 inches down from the base of Kennedy's skull, at the level of his chin...

Now, Craig, I think even you would have to agree that a bullet wound 5 1/2 inches below the base of Kennedy's skull would be much much lower on his body than the level of his chin...

Like I care Pat?

I'm not interested in the SBT. I am interested in watching the intellectual honestly or lack thereof by certain individuals.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, it's easy to show that you must be mistaken or the bunching must be faked. The holes in the

shirt and jacket match the wound on the body, as I have already explained. The evidence is laid out

in "Reasoning about Assassinations". Since they would not match if the shirt and jacket were bunched,

but they do match, the shirt and jacket cannot have been bunched. So you are peddling twaddle--and

have been doing so for years and years. No one with any degree of intellectual integrity would take

such a stand and ignore the proof of matching in a peer-review article published in an international

journal that was originally presented at Cambridge. So either you do not know what you are doing or

. If you don't know what you are doing, . But either you

know what you are doing or you do not. That's what follows.

If you want to get serious instead of farting around, which you have been doing here for years and

years, then explain my argument and the evidence I advance to support it and show what I have wrong.

The traditional standard of scholarship in academia is to respond to a peer-reviewed and published

article with your own peer-reviewed and published rebuttal. I will settle for this much lesser standard.

Anyone with a sense of self-respect would be embarrassed to peddle such twaddle, much less for years.

How many of your "peers" knew there really was a 3"+ fold in JFK's jacket in Betzner.

And yes you should be embarrassed that you "peddle such twaddle".

Edited December 1, 2011 by Kathy Beckett

[Chris Davidson]

Witt to the HSCA:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street), somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

Cliff,

Dean is correct in that Witt's description does not match any of the films or photo's.

Bronson, Willis and partial Z show the umbrella raised over his head.

If Willis is at approx Z202, and his photo shows the umbrella above his head, then at Z212, less than a second later, the umbrella in Z is rising and being rotated somewhat.

Once again, not enough time to accomplish what Witt has described.

Chris, I'm not following your last point. He had the umbrella up in time to see Kennedy but why do we assume that he immediately made visual contact with the limo? He was pumping and twirling the umbrella, consistent with Rosemary Willis saying he seemed more concerned with the umbrella than shots ringing out.

Cliff,

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Witt1.png

Top red box corroborates RoseMary's description of Witt's actions.

Middle box describes shots before Willis at 202, as he is already at the retaining wall by then. I believe Tina Towner said she noticed shots about a second or two after she stopped filming.

Myers has Towner's film ending 8/10 second before Z starts at 133.

Z133+36(2 sec.)=169-(.8 x 18=14frames)=Z155=Z film damage.

Lower box coincides with Willis at 202 and thereafter, along with Bronson/Z.

chris

Edited November 30, 2011 by Chris Davidson