Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Craig Lamson]

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

you are a fraud. If you don't know what you are doing, however, you are also a fraud. But either you

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

They match the wound in the body? Now at which location for the wound would that be Jim? The upper one or the lower one? OH wait? you can't be sure WHERE the wound is actually located because that location has been debated for 48 years and you have never actually SEEN the wound? Right...got it.

So now the fold, which was present at MANY points along the parade route is fake?

I'm not mistaken because my proof is based on the unimpeachable properties of light and shadow.

Of course there is yet another option your "peer reviewed nonsense" fails to posit. That the wound was not as low as you think, and the bunched jacket proves just that.

See jimmy, it cuts both ways. You want to use the clothing to "prove the low back wound. Guess what? Since it is unimpeachable that as late as Betzner there WAS a 3'+ fold on back of JFK's jacket, your "proof" fails. You don't know if the jacket was up or down at the moment of the back shot.. You don't have the first clue.

jimmy wants the world to believe JFK "adjusted his shirt and jacket" ROFLMAO! IS that why his hands were at his throat? Was he adjusting his necktie as well? LOL! You are such a comical figure jimmy!

Stick that in your Cambridge peer review and smoke it jimmy.

I know exactly what I an doing. I'm exposing you. To the truth.

You should try it sometime instead of "peddling twaddle", as you so colorfully put it.

[Greg Parker]

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

[Greg Burnham]

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer.

That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety.

While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination.

For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there.

[David Lifton]

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

FWIW: As to how he heard abut Joseph P Kennedy and the symbolism of the umbrella, the HSCA Witt testimony is sufficiently imprecise that I don't see why it necessarily implies there will be people with umbrellas in news photographs. Here, from HSCA volume 4, is what he said:

QUOTE:

Witt: I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the—when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. By association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and , as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tuscon, or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.

* * *

Faunt. But someone had—no-you had read in the paper that someone had used an umbrella to heckle the President and it was a sore spot, and that was the reason—

Witt: Not read in the papers.

Fauntroy. Someone told you?

Witt: Yes. This was in a conversation somewhere at work. I wish that I could remember now who brought the subject up and put this idea in my head. I am sure that I would have taken that umbrella and clouted him over the head somewhere in this lasts 2 or 3 weeks. (439)

* * *

The key line: " someone had been out at the airport or some place. . "

Witt was obviously not a student of foreign policy, or Munich. . he just heard about something, and so he did what he did.

Is it reasonable to reject his account (and conjure up a conspiracy to "plant" him in Dealey Plaza) because Arizona news photographs can't be found of hecklers with umbrellas?

DSL

[Pat Speer]

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 RoseMary said she noticed shots about a second or two after she stopped filming.

Myers has RoseMary'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

You're getting your young girls confused, Chris. The film was taken by Tina Towner, not Rosemary Willis.

[Greg Parker]

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

FWIW: As to how he heard abut Joseph P Kennedy and the symbolism of the umbrella, the HSCA Witt testimony is sufficiently imprecise that I don't see why it necessarily implies there will be people with umbrellas in news photographs. Here, from HSCA volume 4, is what he said:

QUOTE:

Witt: I know the generalities of the thing. It had something to do with the—when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. By association, it got transferred to the Kennedy family, and , as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tuscon, or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind.

* * *

Faunt. But someone had—no-you had read in the paper that someone had used an umbrella to heckle the President and it was a sore spot, and that was the reason—

Witt: Not read in the papers.

Fauntroy. Someone told you?

Witt: Yes. This was in a conversation somewhere at work. I wish that I could remember now who brought the subject up and put this idea in my head. I am sure that I would have taken that umbrella and clouted him over the head somewhere in this lasts 2 or 3 weeks. (439)

* * *

The key line: " someone had been out at the airport or some place. . "

Witt was obviously not a student of foreign policy, or Munich. . he just heard about something, and so he did what he did.

Is it reasonable to reject his account (and conjure up a conspiracy to "plant" him in Dealey Plaza) because Arizona news photographs can't be found of hecklers with umbrellas?

DSL

Yes, it is.

How did his work colleagues know about it, unless the alleged incident had been published in the newspapers? Are you going to claim that he/she or they were actual eye-witnesses in Arizona?

[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 RoseMary said she noticed shots about a second or two after she stopped filming.

Myers has RoseMary'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

You're getting your young girls confused, Chris. The film was taken by Tina Towner, not Rosemary Willis.

OOPS!!! Brain Freeze.

Thanks Pat,

Corrected in the original post now.

chris

[David Lifton]

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer.

That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety.

While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination.

For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there.

Well, suppose Witt could produce various family members who would state that he was in Dealey Plaza, and how embarrassed he felt about what he had done, etc.--i.e., who would corroborate what he said to the HSCA.

I'm not saying Witt has such witnesses, but he certainly told his dentist about it, and that's the "corroboration" that I became personally aware of, back in the 1970s. Also, HSCA investigator Moriarty went to Witts home. Do you seriously believe that his wife, and children were also part of this "perjury" conspiracy that you implicitly posit was unfolding.

Yes, I can just imagine it. ..

WITT HOME. . SHORTLY BEFORE HIS HSCA APPEARANCE. . . DOORBELL RINGS. .

Witt's Wife: "Honey, its the man from the HSCA. He's here, and he wants to speak to you about your fabricated story about having been in Dealey Plaza. Should I tell him to wait in the living room, until you're ready to see him, and lie to him? (And if you need corroboration, I'll be in the kitchen, baking a pie!)"

* * *

Oh pleez. . .Greg Burnham. . . let's get real.

I think this episode simply shows how some people, enamored of a hypothesis, will simply not give it up, no matter what the contrary evidence is.

IMHO: The Steve Witt episode is an excellent example of this behavior.

Steve Witt was there, he is/was credible, and he was not part of some conspiracy to "signal" for more shots to be fired, or to indicate that JFK was "not yet dead." Those who cling to that silly idea expose themselves as absurdly biased, or poor analysts of data, or both.

How can anyone expect the mainstream media to take advocates of conspiracy seriously when this is the sort of thing that passes for "reasoning."

DSL

[Greg Burnham]

Greg & Lee,

I hope you both take my next comment in the true "spirit" in which it is intended. Keep in mind, my daughter married an Australian and my granddaughter was born in Queensland, as well. So, I have great affection for your country and I have grown to respect both of you over the years as well...BUT--

It is pathetic, in my view, that some of the best reasoned arguments regarding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States come from down under!

Thank you both for your interest, hard work, and dedication to the subject. it serves all of us very well.

[Greg Burnham]

David,

Are you kidding me right now? What kind of a loon would:

While on a coffee break, hear about a protest with umbrellas in Phoenix or Tucson that was related to a Neville Chamberlain issue from "Hitler days" which had occurred at least 25 years earlier--and then, not being educated himself about the significance to Munich, and all the rest, connect the dots to JFK's father, Joseph P Kennedy, formerly the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (something of which Witt had no previous knowledge prior to this coffee break), who was an American Isolationist (a term with which Witt was unfamiliar, but no matter)--STILL decide to imitate that protest himself in the immediate vicinity of the assassination in Dallas?

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer.

That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety.

While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination.

For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there.

Well, suppose Witt could produce various family members who would state that he was in Dealey Plaza, and how embarrassed he felt about what he had done, etc.--i.e., who would corroborate what he said to the HSCA.

I'm not saying Witt has such witnesses, but he certainly told his dentist about it, and that's the "corroboration" that I became personally aware of, back in the 1970s. Also, HSCA investigator Moriarty went to Witts home. Do you seriously believe that his wife, and children were also part of this "perjury" conspiracy that you implicitly posit was unfolding.

Yes, I can just imagine it. ..

WITT HOME. . SHORTLY BEFORE HIS HSCA APPEARANCE. . . DOORBELL RINGS. .

Witt's Wife: "Honey, its the man from the HSCA. He's here, and he wants to speak to you about your fabricated story about having been in Dealey Plaza. Should I tell him to wait in the living room, until you're ready to see him, and lie to him? (And if you need corroboration, I'll be in the kitchen, baking a pie!)"

* * *

Oh pleez. . .Greg Burnham. . . let's get real.

I think this episode simply shows how some people, enamored of a hypothesis, will simply not give it up, no matter what the contrary evidence is.

IMHO: The Steve Witt episode is an excellent example of this behavior.

Steve Witt was there, he is/was credible, and he was not part of some conspiracy to "signal" for more shots to be fired, or to indicate that JFK was "not yet dead." Those who cling to that silly idea expose themselves as absurdly biased, or poor analysts of data, or both.

How can anyone expect the mainstream media to take advocates of conspiracy seriously when this is the sort of thing that passes for "reasoning."

DSL

Edited November 30, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Parker]

Greg & Lee,

I hope you both take my next comment in the true "spirit" in which it is intended. Keep in mind, my daughter married an Australian and my granddaughter was born in Queensland, as well. So, I have great affection for your country and I have grown to respect both of you over the years as well...BUT--

It is pathetic, in my view, that some of the best reasoned arguments regarding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States come from down under!

Thank you both for your interest, hard work, and dedication to the subject. it serves all of us very well.

Not insulted - slightly embarrassed.

Lee may not too pleased though... he is from, and lives in, Liverpool, England....

As for "Mr I knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who this guy's chiropodist and he told me the story is totally true"... what can I say? You haven't even produced the names of these people and have now tried your darndest to suggest the alleged Arizona protests would not have been published.

I don't think Witt would have told a story that was not true unless he had been assured it would not be investigated.

And one thing we do know - IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Confirming my diagnosis , you are discounting (i) the Boswell autopsy diagram,

(ii) the Sibert and O'Neill diagram, (iii) the Burkely death certificate, (iv) the reenactment photos

from the Warren Commission staff, (v) the mortician's description of the wound, (vi) the CAT scan by

David Mantik proving that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible, and (vii)

the discovery by the ARRB that Gerald Ford (R-MI) had had the wound redescribed from his "uppermost

back", which was already an exaggeration, to "the base of the back of his neck". Since there was no

"magic bullet", the wounds to JFK's throat and to John Connally have to be explained on the basis of

other shots and other shooters. You are done, Lamson.

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

you are a fraud. If you don't know what you are doing, however, you are also a fraud. But either you

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

They match the wound in the body? Now at which location for the wound would that be Jim? The upper one or the lower one? OH wait? you can't be sure WHERE the wound is actually located because that location has been debated for 48 years and you have never actually SEEN the wound? Right...got it.

So now the fold, which was present at MANY points along the parade route is fake?

I'm not mistaken because my proof is based on the unimpeachable properties of light and shadow.

Of course there is yet another option your "peer reviewed nonsense" fails to posit. That the wound was not as low as you think, and the bunched jacket proves just that.

See jimmy, it cuts both ways. You want to use the clothing to "prove the low back wound. Guess what? Since it is unimpeachable that as late as Betzner there WAS a 3'+ fold on back of JFK's jacket, your "proof" fails. You don't know if the jacket was up or down at the moment of the back shot.. You don't have the first clue.

jimmy wants the world to believe JFK "adjusted his shirt and jacket" ROFLMAO! IS that why his hands were at his throat? Was he adjusting his necktie as well? LOL! You are such a comical figure jimmy!

Stick that in your Cambridge peer review and smoke it jimmy.

I know exactly what I an doing. I'm exposing you. To the truth.

You should try it sometime instead of "peddling twaddle", as you so colorfully put it.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Kathy Beckett
removed ad hom

[Greg Burnham]

Greg & Lee,

I hope you both take my next comment in the true "spirit" in which it is intended. Keep in mind, my daughter married an Australian and my granddaughter was born in Queensland, as well. So, I have great affection for your country and I have grown to respect both of you over the years as well...BUT--

It is pathetic, in my view, that some of the best reasoned arguments regarding the assassination of the 35th President of the United States come from down under!

Thank you both for your interest, hard work, and dedication to the subject. it serves all of us very well.

Not insulted - slightly embarrassed.

Lee may not too pleased though... he is from, and lives in, Liverpool, England....

As for "Mr I knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who knew this guy who this guy's chiropodist and he told me the story is totally true"... what can I say? You haven't even produced the names of these people and have now tried your darndest to suggest the alleged Arizona protests would not have been published.

I don't think Witt would have told a story that was not true unless he had been assured it would not be investigated.

And one thing we do know - IT WAS NOT INVESTIGATED.

LOL

Oops! Sorry, Lee. Hey, I can make up for it. My sir name is English!

Having said that, it is encouraging to know that this issue is important to those even outside of the US. --

I think the evidence supporting Witt's testimony is a combination of non-existent and extremely thin. As a juror, I would need a whole lot more. Apparently as Congressmen, the House Select Committee on Assassination's members didn't even need as much as they got.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Where do you come up with this, Monk? What is the "other published testimony" about the car stop and all that? Please explain what you are talking about. I agree that his explanation of his presence is rather incredible. This is not a court of law, Monk, and that principle does not apply. We are trying to figure out whether or not he was there.

That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety.

He offered eyewitness testimony that, to the best of my knowledge, was not offered by any other HSCA witness. Are you claiming that he had access to descriptions of the limo stop, the Cadillac running onto the Lincoln, the breaks screeching, and all that? How else could he possibly know if he had not been there? Do you have an answer for that?

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.

Lee, Greg & Barb,

I know how thorough you all are. The only protest I could find anything about during JFK visits to Az was of the anti-Catholic type.

Another observation... working backwards from the Wiki entry for TUM.

It has used Tink's piece along with McAdams' TUM page as it's main sources.

The Wiki entry makes no mention of Witt claiming to have copied his protest style and content from ones conducted against JFK interstate.

Tink's piece also fails to mention what Witt claimed was his inspiration.

On McAdams' page, we find -- surprise surprise - he too, fails to mention anything about past umbrella protests against JFK and links to a single 1930s cartoon - the same one used by Wiki - but Wiki goes one better than McAdams by saying, "An umbrella had been used in cartoons in the 1930s to symbolize such appeasement..." Well, one cartoon, anyway...

Bottom line: If there were in fact, any umbrella-wielding protesters in Az, McAdams, one of his students or one of his minions would have dug up some evidence of their existence and he would not have to bypass this explanation, and rely instead on a single 1930s cartoon to prop Witt up.

In the meantime, broad acceptance of Witt's story seems to indicate a propaganda success for McAdams.

Maybe the real cautionary tale is - do not take anything on face value. Research it before opening your mouth.

Or you can simply forget it, man

Thanks for your evaluation, Greg. I believe you are spot on. Unless proven otherwise, I will treat Witt in the same way I would treat him if I were a juror. I would reject his claim as there appears to be nothing to substantiate it, notwithstanding the acceptance of his presence in Dealey Plaza by my friend, Jim Fetzer.

That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety.

While his testimony regarding the limo stop could be indicative of his presence, it is not dispositive by any means. Moreover, while it could be argued that his mentioning a complete stop would be counter-productive to the interests of those wishing to conceal same, the notion of Z-film alteration had yet to be investigated, and therefore was most probably not recognized as a "hot spot" at that time. He appears to have been "fed" testimony in order to self corroborate his own presence. His testimony was not taken contemporaneously by any stretch of the imagination.

For once, Jim & Tink have something in common. Sorry, my friend, but you are both wrong about Witt. He wasn't even there.

Edited November 30, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

First off, I am struggling with formatting this reply. Please bear with me.

Where do you come up with this, Monk? What is the "other published testimony" about the car stop and all that? Please explain what you are talking about.

monk said: "That he reported similar eyewitness testimony that was consistent with other published eyewitness testimony does not persuade in and of itself. That he appears to have fabricated the explanation for his actions out of thin air indicates perjury. If he offered perjurious testimony to explain the KEY ELEMENTS of his actions in Dealey Plaza, then I am free to reject his testimony in its entirety."

Jim said: "He offered eyewitness testimony that, to the best of my knowledge, was not offered by any other HSCA witness. Are you claiming that he had access to descriptions of the limo stop, the Cadillac running onto the Lincoln, the breaks screeching, and all that? How else could he possibly know if he had not been there?"

monk says: "In my view, the probability that he was fed testimony consistent with other testimony to which those involved in the deed were privy, is extremely high. Perhaps I misspoke when I said other "published" testimony. My apologies. But, wait--didn't numerous eyewitnesses state that the limo came to a stop, Jim? Didn't they say that prior to 1975? Were the perpetrators aware of this? Of course they were.

I saw the "other film" so I do not need yet "one more witness" to corroborate Z-film fakery. It is a fact. End of debate.

Witt's testimony offers not one whit of probable corroboration, in my view.

Edited November 30, 2011 by Greg Burnham