Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by Kathy Beckett
removed more ad hom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

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

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....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Chris Davidson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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...