Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Robert, If the film is altered, it's altered, and one would not know which part was real vs. imaginary. Jack White, I believe, said it was useless.

I believe the film is genuine,but saying "98% level that a shot was hitting from the front right"doesn't work. I believed that the shot was from the right front too, but I couldn't put a shooter far enough down the fence to do it. 98% doesn't work, and i don't understand where you got that %. Do you mean 95% certainty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 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"

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

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"

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 by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Craig Lamson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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....

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...