Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Interesting that, when the NYT finally begins to cede some ground, that rare earth is the ground that is the most tenuous and divisive of the pro-conspirarcy advocates.

Who could ask for anything more?

[Dean Hagerman]

I wouldnt believe that Tink was an Op if he told me himself to my face

[Josiah Thompson]

A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,

http://www.conspiracy.co/forums/main-wall/8966-mary-moorman-breaks-her-silence.html

An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York TImes on the Umbrella Man,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html

OP-DOCS

‘The Umbrella Man’: A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)

The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.

By ERROL MORRIS

Published: November 21, 2011

COMMENTS (254)

For years, I’ve wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?

Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara”) and a recent New York Times best-selling author (“Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography”). His first film, “Gates of Heaven,” is on Roger Ebert’s list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, “Tabloid,” has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson’s career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which had been written earlier.

where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:

23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)

Mark M

New York, NY

November 22nd, 2011

6:16 am

This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.

Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

James H. Fetzer

Location

Oregon, WI

Comment

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?

Jim

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

[Pamela Brown]

Perhaps it's time to just agree-to-disagree and move forward together. We can all benefit from everything Tink and Fetzer have to offer.

[William Kelly]

A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,

http://www.conspirac...er-silence.html

An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York TImes on the Umbrella Man,

http://www.nytimes.c...brella-man.html

OP-DOCS

'The Umbrella Man': A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)

The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.

By ERROL MORRIS

Published: November 21, 2011

COMMENTS (254)

For years, I've wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?

Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — "Six Seconds in Dallas." Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker ("The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara") and a recent New York Times best-selling author ("Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography"). His first film, "Gates of Heaven," is on Roger Ebert's list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, "Tabloid," has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson's career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write "Six Seconds in Dallas," which had been written earlier.

where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:

23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)

Mark M

New York, NY

November 22nd, 2011

6:16 am

This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.

Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

James H. Fetzer

Location

Oregon, WI

Comment

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassination...ella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?

Jim

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an "op" or stupid. Since he's lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor's infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I'm going "to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all."

Thank you, Professor. Once again you've given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I've been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK's head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I've made good progress on part of it. It's appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I've come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I've also come to recognize that I don't know all the answers and don't even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It's much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I've read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

So glad that you are getting back into the game, and not just jousting with Prof. Fetzer, and looking forward to more of your six hour interview with Earrol Morris in what seems like a very professionally done presentation.

As for the railroad construction workers, while I too would like to see the police reports they should of filed, they were eyewitness to more than just smoke.

They also witnesses Oswald leaving the parked car with his package and walking the 300 yards to the rear of the TSBD.

Brennan, one of the witnesses who actually saw the Sixth Floor Sniper, was one of them.

Another was a construction worker described by Amos Eunis as being a hard hat man who he heard tell a policeman he saw a man with a bald spot leaving the back door of the TSBD.

Sine Eunis himself swore that the Sixth Floor Sniper had such a bald spot, and there is a film of a man with such a bald spot in a brown jacket meandering around the railroad tracks after the assassination, it should be

of interest, and recorded somewhere among the Dallas police reports.

All the best,

BK

JFKcountercoup

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Most of those who pass for students of JFK have no idea how to sort out even a case as simple as this.

(1) Tink assumes that the Umbrella man was Louie Steven Witt. But that is a conclusion that requires

evidence. In logic, this is called "begging the question" by assuming what requires independent proof.

(2) The umbrella he presented is not the umbrella held by the Umbrella man, since it has the wrong

number of spokes. So in claiming it was the same, Witt was lying and demonstrating he is a fraud.

(3) Josiah exaggerates the role of the Umbrella man to make it easier to attack by suggesting that

critics believe he had some kind of weapon cloaked inside the umbrella. This attacking a straw man.

(4) He treats the Umbrella man as though he were separate and apart from the Cuban, who raises

his fist in an apparent gesture to Greer to bring the limo to a halt, which is what Green then did.

(5) Presenting only part of the evidence (known as "special pleading"), Tink does not report that

this person was pumping the umbrella up and down in an apparent signal to "continue firing".

(6) He does not acknowledge that they were clearly together and remained seated on the curb for

some time, where they were photographed, before they stood up and walked in opposite directions.

(7) He ignores that more reasonable identifications would be of the Cuban as Felipe Vidal Santiago,

a committed anti-Castro Cuban, and of Roy Hargraves, who fit the photos and the scenario to a "t".

(8) The very idea that he would offer this fantastic story about Joe Kennedy, which is preposterous

on its face, as though it was "so extraordinary and unbelievable it must be true", is clearly absurd.

(9) It is far more likely that he was signaling to the assassins that JFK was still alive, which makes

sense, rather than an obscure historical allusion that no one, including Jack, would have grasped.

(10) And remarking that there are always alternative explanations may be true, when you isolate

one element of a complex picture, a technique used here that is known as "divide and conquer".

(11) If all you knew were what Tink presents in this little clip, then you might easily be taken in;

once you consider the other evidence we have available, his scenario is not remotely plausible.

(12) That so many on a forum would be taken in by a blatant display of disinformation is beyond

me. It reinforces my belief that most who post here don't have even a clue about what's going on.

A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,

http://www.conspiracy.co/forums/main-wall/8966-mary-moorman-breaks-her-silence.html

An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York TImes on the Umbrella Man,

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/22/opinion/the-umbrella-man.html

OP-DOCS

‘The Umbrella Man’: A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)

The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.

By ERROL MORRIS

Published: November 21, 2011

COMMENTS (254)

For years, I’ve wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?

Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara”) and a recent New York Times best-selling author (“Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography”). His first film, “Gates of Heaven,” is on Roger Ebert’s list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, “Tabloid,” has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson’s career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which had been written earlier.

where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:

23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)

Mark M

New York, NY

November 22nd, 2011

6:16 am

This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.

Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

James H. Fetzer

Location

Oregon, WI

Comment

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?

Jim

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

Tink, one of the little-appreciated facts about the assassination is that one of those on the railroad bridge claiming he saw and/or smelled smoke WAS a Dallas Police Officer.

From patspeer.com, chapter 7:

Earle V. Brown was a Dallas police officer stationed on the south end of the railroad bridge. (12-23-63 FBI report on a 12-9-63 interview, CD205 p39) "He stated he heard the shots that killed President Kennedy, but did not see the shots take effect and stated he could not furnish any information which would assist in identifying the assassin. He advised that he believed he could smell gunpowder in the air on the overpass but believed it was probably brought there by the wind." (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H231-236) "the first I noticed the car was when it stopped...After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." (When asked if it made a complete stop) "That I couldn't swear to." (When asked how many shots he heard) "Three." (When asked from where the shots came) "Well, they seemed high to me...It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas...School Book Depository." (7-15-64 signed statement to the Dallas Police Department, 22H600) "I heard the shots and they seemed like they were coming high from the direction of the book depository building. There was a terrific echo." (11-09-83 AP article found in the Indiana Gazette) "I was down there early at about 10 a.m. and I had this vision of a rifle sticking out of a window. It was very strange. Then I heard these shots," said Brown. "It was a premonition and it has always really shook me up when I think of it. It was like someone was trying to tell me something." About two hours later, Brown said, he heard shots and saw two or three puffs of white smoke wafting toward the bridge. The president, he said, was lying in his wife's lap as the car passed beneath him. "I still see that," he said.

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Over the years, I've repeatedly encountered the suspicion that Josiah Thompson is a disinformation agent.

Why, that's so ridiculous, it MUST be true.

[Daniel Meyer]

Dr Fetzer: I think there certainly was a conspiracy and there certainly was manipulation and destruction of evidence to cover it up. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on Zapruder film falsification. (I have no expertise in motion pictures, and agree with the assertion that "If the Zapruder film is authentic it is proof of conspiracy; if the Zapruder film is modified or fabricated, it is also proof of conspiracy".) That said, for the sake of this argument I shall for the moment assume you are correct and Dr. Thompson is mistaken on this point.

With your academic background I am somewhat surprised that you jump to the conclusion that Dr. Josiah Thompson's continued sticking to the authenticity of the film is evidence that he is an op of the conspiracy. It seems to me rather a very common phenomenon in topics of prolonged expanding research: excellent researchers of one generation can be among the most resistant to new developments from the next generation of researchers if it shows that large amounts of effort were expended by the earlier researchers based in whole or part on false assumptions.

In my undergrad days I recall a geologist explaining that the theory of Continental Drift did not become accepted by by the consensus of geologists through dramatic additional confirming discoveries. When the theory was first advanced, most older geologists categorically dismissed it as simply being too bizarre to be true. The tide turned only with time as the field was became dominated by the next generation who encountered the theory in their youth and had no inherent emotional objection to it.

Other examples that come to my mind: Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, the preeminent expert on Maya hieroglyphic writing of the mid 20th century, who in his later years became one of the most vehement critics of the phonetic syllabic theory of decypherment (which is now accepted as the most important development in the topic which led to the majority of the inscriptions becoming readable). Musicologist William Russell was one of the first to treat jazz as worthy of serious academic study and wrote pioneering books and articles on the subject; he also "rediscovered" retired old jazz musician Bunk Johnson, got him out of retirement and into playing and making recordings. But when later researchers determined that Johnson fabricated or exaggerated much of his account of his early life and career, Russell was one of the most resistant to the very notion that some of what Bunk told him in his interviews might have been "bunk". See any pattern here?

Personally, I find discussions of differing interpretations to be more interesting and informative when they are weighted more towards data than ad hominems.

Best wishes to all. -- D.M.

Edited November 24, 2011 by Daniel Meyer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I have been dealing with Zapruder film alteration since 1996, when I organized the first symposium at Lancer in Dallas. Tink has been asssiling me ever since. I have published many articles about it, some of which can be found on my assassinationscience.com web site. I have also published THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) and the Duluth conference on film alteration is available on YouTube. Indeed, if you read "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication" on Veterans Today, you will see that I have introduced links to each of the six participants contributions. Check out those videos.

It seems to me you have not thought this through. There was a fist-sized hole in the back of his head. The Parkland physicians were very explicit about it. I discuss it and diagrams of it by McClelland and Crenshaw in every presentation I make. Aguilar did a long study about it in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). While I now believe he did not do justice to the enhancement of the wound performed by Humes using a cranial saw, it should be obvious that the film cannot be unaltered, given this wound, because it has been painted over in the early frames--even though it is visible in frame 374. How do you reconcile those reports with the film?

I spent 35 years teaching logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, Daniel. I recognize that there are members of the JFK research community who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that the film has been altered, no matter how much proof may be available. You may ask why they would have done this or that, but you are not considering the time-line. They did what they did, which resulted in a flawed film. Clint Hill, whose life was defined by those few seconds, has described those moments the same way for 47 years, as I explain in "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder fim?"

Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.

I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards. Convergence in views depends upon having the same body of evidence, the same alternative hypotheses, and relying upon the same rules of reasoning. There is massive objective proof that this film was redone. We know the exchange took place at the NPIC. You may actually be familiar with the evidence and the alternative hypotheses, but perhaps not with the principle known as "inference to the best explanation". Just a suggestion, but you might read "Thinking about 'Conspiracy Theories': 9/11 and JFK", where I explain it in the first few sections. I cannot otherwise account for why you are in a state of doubt.

Tink has been working against scientific research from qualified experts from the beginning. He attacked ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), even though it published meticulous studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., proving that the autopsy X-rays had been altered and a fine contribution from Robert B. Livington, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, showing that the brain shown in the diagrams and photographs at the National Archives could not possibly be the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. It shattered the cover up on the basis of impeccable scientific conclusions, yet he attacked it as "Assassinated Science".

He also assaulted MURDER, which many regard as the best collection of studies ever published on the death of JFK, while praising only one chapter by Gary Aguilar. When I observed that, if Aguilar was right (about the massive blow out to the back of the head), then he had to be wrong (about the authenticity of the film), he went silent. For the latest on JFK, see "JFK: What we know now that we didn't know then", which includes new proof that Oswald was not on the 6th floor and summarizes our findings. You can sort it out for yourself, but there have been many signs that Tink was not on "the up and up", where I believe we are now seeing the fruition of his efforts to undermine JFK research in this new series featured by The New York Times.

So my experience with Tink is not limited to issues related to the Zapruder film, even though his commitment to preserve an aura of authenticity seems to have driven him from the beginning. He has attacked me so many times I have lost count (many many hundreds and probably even a thousand), where his resorting to fallacies I spent 35-years teaching freshmen to avoid revealed to me that he was not the man he claimed to be. I have now inventoried at least a half-dozen fallacies that he has committed in this latest charade, featured in a newspaper that Carl Bernstein as infiltrated by the CIA back in 1977. I am sorry, Daniel, but any views I have formed about Josiah Thompson are substantiated in spades by the evidence, including this latest exercise in disinformation.

Jim

Dr Fetzer: I think there certainly was a conspiracy and there certainly was manipulation and destruction of evidence to cover it up. That said, I don't have a strong opinion on Zapruder film falsification. (I have no expertise in motion pictures, and agree with the assertion that "If the Zapruder film is authentic it is proof of conspiracy; if the Zapruder film is modified or fabricated, it is also proof of conspiracy".) That said, for the sake of this argument I shall for the moment assume you are correct and Dr. Thompson is mistaken on this point.

With your academic background I am somewhat surprised that you jump to the conclusion that Dr. Josiah Thompson's continued sticking to the authenticity of the film is evidence that he is an op of the conspiracy. It seems to me rather a very common phenomenon in topics of prolonged expanding research: excellent researchers of one generation can be among the most resistant to new developments from the next generation of researchers if it shows that large amounts of effort were expended by the earlier researchers based in whole or part on false assumptions.

In my undergrad days I recall a geologist explaining that the theory of Continental Drift did not become accepted by by the consensus of geologists through dramatic additional confirming discoveries. When the theory was first advanced, most older geologists categorically dismissed it as simply being too bizarre to be true. The tide turned only with time as the field was became dominated by the next generation who encountered the theory in their youth and had no inherent emotional objection to it.

Other examples that come to my mind: Mayanist J. Eric S. Thompson, the preeminent expert on Maya hieroglyphic writing of the mid 20th century, who in his later years became one of the most vehement critics of the phonetic syllabic theory of decypherment (which is now accepted as the most important development in the topic which led to the majority of the inscriptions becoming readable). Musicologist William Russell was one of the first to treat jazz as worthy of serious academic study and wrote pioneering books and articles on the subject; he also "rediscovered" retired old jazz musician Bunk Johnson, got him out of retirement and into playing and making recordings. But when later researchers determined that Johnson fabricated or exaggerated much of his account of his early life and career, Russell was one of the most resistant to the very notion that some of what Bunk told him in his interviews might have been "bunk". See any pattern here?

Personally, I find discussions of differing interpretations to be more interesting and informative when they are weighted more towards data than ad hominems.

Best wishes to all. -- D.M.

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so.

I am not surprised that you call Josiah an "op". With all due respect, it is fairly common for you to call folk who don't agree with you "disinfo agent" or some derivative of it.

I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all.

He never said anything about there being no conspiracy. He just happens to believe differently than you. So do I, and on most things, but I would never call you an op because your views are different than mine.

Happy Thanksgiving--best wishes to you and yours.

Kathy

A few days ago, I posted the following on an email chain hosted by a prominent JFK researcher, explaining why I had still another reason for believing Steven Witt’s account. Quoting:

Back around 1971-73, I knew well someone who was from Dallas, and who knew Steven Witt’s dentist. Consequently, I learned about Witt, as I recall, before he testified to HSCA. Knowing about Joseph P. Kennedy’s isolationist policies, and Neville Chamberlain as the symbol for all that, and the symbolism of Chamberlain’s umbrella, I found the explanation for what Witt had done perfectly logical, even if a bit odd. Someone from his generation could well present his anti-JFK sentiment in just that way. So its possibly the case that one of last things that President Kennedy may have seen (if he could see at all) was someone who had come to protest his father’s policies.

Anyway, my point is that I heard the explanation for the “umbrella man” from someone who knew the umbrella man’s dentist. I made no secret of this, and once Witt testified (and told the same story as I had already heard), I was surprised when people still refused to believe it was him.

But that doesn’t in any way negate the serious evidence of conspiracy (and fraud in the autopsy evidence) in the Kennedy case. And that, ultimately, is what this case is all about—not whether some eccentric showed up with an umbrella and was pumping it up and down, at the time he was being shot. UNQUOTE

Needless to say, I take issue with Fetzer accusing someone of being an “operative” I don’t believe that at all. But I also find myself in disagreement with Josiah Thompson, but for entirely different reasons.

Fetzer first: on another thread, started months ago and which had about 60,000 views (the one using the words ". . public relations disaster" in the title), I said then (and still believe today) that Fetzer's belief in such things as "a missile hit the Pentagon", that no planes hit the World Trade Center, and other related ideas have created a situation in which no member of the main stream media--not a single one--will ever take seriously anything he has to say about Zapruder film alteration, and that is most unfortunate, because there is much critical evidence to be considered and debated in that area. As I wrote to a friend recently: "For all his erudition in the JFK case, Fetzer has thrown away any credibility he might have had with these views, and that is sad."

About Josiah Thompson: my disagreement with him is on a more philosophical level. Josiah Thompson, in his 1967 book, Six Seconds in Dallas, was the first person to both discover, and publish, the story of the Umbrella Man. Then, in 1978, with the HSCA testimony of Witt, the idea that Witt was evidence of a conspiracy was shot down. What lesson did Tink draw from that? Here's what he said (on the film shot by Errol Morris, and which appeared on the NY Times blog), and I quote: "What it means is, that if you have any fact which you think is really sinister, which is really obviously a fact, which can only point to some sinister underpinnings; hey, forget it man, because you can never on your own think up all the non-sinster, perfectly valid, explanations, for that fact." And Tink then looked into the camera and said: "A cautionary tale."

Well, that's where we disagree. Completely. And the issue is just how far we're going to carry our skepticism, in analyzing data.

I will admit to one thing: I, personally, never thought of the "umbrella man" as being someone protesting Joseph P. Kennedy's policies of appeasement, and his support of Chamberlain (and I think I'm pretty good at thinking up, and considering, all "innocent explanations"). And I'll confess to having failed in this particular instance. But I strongly disagree with the lesson Tink Thompson draws.

Specifically: I do not subscribe, for example, to the notion that the many witnesses who saw the car stop were simply confusing a "slow down" with a stop; nor do I subscribe to the notion that the Dallas doctor and nurses who reported an avulsive wound at the back of the head were merely "mistaken"; nor do I subscribe to the notion that there is an innocent explanation for why two FBI agents at the autopsy, making notes at Dr. Humes talked, misunderstood or misreported when they wrote down that Humes said that, upon first viewing the body, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area,namely, in the top of the skull." Nor do I think there's an "innocent explanation" for why over a dozen witnesses (and various documents) state that the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue a good 20 minutes before the Dallas casket--which means that that casket was empty.

So. . where do I stand?:

Did the car stop? Yes, I believe it did.

Was the Zapruder film (and others) altered? Yes.

Do I have all the answers as to how this was accomplished? No. . not yet.

Was Kennedy's body in the Dallas casket at the time of the takeoff of AF-1 from Love Field? No, it wasn't.

Was it, somehow, removed from the casket? Hell, yes.

Were wounds altered, and bullets removed, prior to the start of the Bethesda autopsy? Yes, I am certain that is so.

Is there an "innocent explanation" for the evidence supporting those beliefs? No, unfortunately there is not.

But. . was there an innocent explanation for Steve Witt pumping an umbrella up and down evidence of conspiracy? Yes, in that case, there certainly was.

So. . .what is the "cautionary tale" to be learned from all this?

The main one: Do NOT draw the wrong conclusion from the Steve Witt experience.

Do not conclude that because there was an "innocent explanation" in the Steve Witt case, that that will always turn out to be so.

So here is my belief, and it is not so much an argument "for conspiracy," as much a "cautionary tale" to reign in one's pessimism, and/or agnosticism. To repeat what Tink said, on camera, and which I reject: "What it means is, that if you have any fact which you think is really sinister, which is really obviously a fact, which can only point to some sinister underpinnings; hey, forget it man, because you can never on your own think up all the non-sinister, perfectly valid, explanations, for that fact."

Well, Josiah, that's where we disagree.

Back in 1967, when you published Six Seconds, and when I read it, I do regret that neither or us--not you, not I, nor any other reader of your book (as far as I know) --apparently made the connection between Witt's umbrella and Kennedy's father.

And yet, retrospectively, perhaps we ought to have. Because that is not a "crazy" idea. Not at all.

That Kennedy was hated because of his father--the whole concept of the "sins of the father"--is not new. (There'a whole book, by that title, "Sins of the Father," by Ron Kessler). And this dynamic was evident in the 1960 election. Remember: Kennedy had to get up before the Houston ministers and argue that just because he was a Catholic, that did not mean that his election would mean that the country would be "run from Rome" and other such prejudicial nonsense.

So. . why shouldn't we have "thought of it" when we saw that umbrella? Why didn't we think of Joseph P Kennedy?

This was not some mere footnote to history, because the hatred of Kennedy's father, and the notion that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree" was indeed quite widespread. We just weren't listening. (I can only speak for myself: I was young enough to be abysmally uninformed about JFK's father. Not anymore. I was then.) But that undercurrent of hatred and prejudice towards JPK (Joseph P. Kennedy) can never be underestimated as a fundamental contributory cause for why there was a plot to murder the son...the President, "our" President. Steve Witt "symbolized" it (and he, personally, was innocent of course); but nonetheless, you and I and many others missed it. The umbrella was certainly no swastika, but it was relevant nonetheless. (What could be more relevant than a symbol protesting the foreign policies of the father, at the time when the extreme right in this country was thinking the same thing about the son??)

"Semiotics" is defined as "the study of signs and symbols of all kinds, what they mean, and how they relate to the things or ideas they refer to."

Chamberlain's umbrella, and its presence right there in Dealey Plaza, right there when Kennedy was being shot. . is something we all missed, Tink, and we should not have. My point is: let's not use that failure to extrapolate and ignore or dismiss other relevant evidence. And if that is what Errol Morris is doing in his film, then I think he (too) has drawn the wrong conclusion from this episode.

Food for thought.

Happy thanksgiving to all.

DSL

11/24/11; 3:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

So. . why shouldn't we have "thought of it" when we saw that umbrella? Why didn't we think of Joseph P Kennedy?

Because nor would anyone else. For a supposed “protest,” it was closer to dadaist performance art, unimaginable as an allusion to Joe Kennedy even to minds so bright as Tink Thompson and David Lifton. And everybody else. How an umbrella refers exclusively and unambiguously to Kennedy or Chamberlain has yet to be explained by anyone.

If the allusion to Joe Kennedy failed to materialize as an explanation in the minds of anyone and everyone interested in the topic of the Umbrella Man, and the HSCA staff that sought him out, what made him think it was a protest that anyone would recognize? What is the point of a protest that nobody understands, not even the intended target of the protest? It only became apparent when Witt stated it fifteen years after the fact. As protests go: epic fail.

Perhaps more germane to consider is whether it was in fact Witt at all. We have only his word for it.

Perhaps more germane to consider is that if it was Witt, he worked in the Rio Grande Building, which also housed the local Military Intelligence group. The very people who, if Robert Jones’ HSCA testimony is accurate, knew immediately that Lee Oswald and A. Hidell were either synonymous or in some way related, as the names were apparently cross-referenced within MI files.

Perhaps more germane to consider is that if the story is true of Oswald taking an eastbound walk to catch a westbound bus, he would have done so almost directly at the location of the Rio Grande Building.

Perhaps more germane to consider is that the umbrella was closed immediately before the event and immediately afterward, but pumped vigorously during the event itself. Oddly, he was joined in the pumping motion by the fist of Dark Complected Man who, of all the bystanders he might have stood next to, chose to stand directly next to Umbrella Man. And pumped his fist at precisely the same time that the umbrella was being pumped. What was Dark Complected Man’s action designed to obliquely protest: the Nazi salute?

Equally germane is that Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man presumably knew each other, in that they acted in tandem during the event, and immediately afterward, sitting down as though nothing had occurred while all others around them dispersed hither and yon chasing phantoms or hit the dirt.

While we might not understand the true dimensions of what Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man were doing next to each other that day, we do recognize today when efforts to explain this away as irrelevant fail. Oddly, the explanation comes from two conspiracy advocates who pat each other on the back while dismissing the most obvious possible evidence of conspiracy. Nothing to see, move along.

Swing and a miss, boys. Nice try, though.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Perhaps more germane to consider is that if the story is true of Oswald taking an eastbound walk to catch a westbound bus, he would have done so almost directly at the location of the Rio Grande Building.

You gotta love these Oswald accusers

like the CIA, the Warren Commission

and Robert Charles Dunne

[Daniel Meyer]

Daniel,

Thanks for your thoughtful post.

Thank you for your detailed reply, and your pointers to articles and links which I shall check out.

(...edit...)

Plenty of people insist the film is authentic, when it cannot possibly be authentic. It is not even self-consistent, since frame 374 shows the wound that has been obfuscated in earlier frames--where, according to Hollywood film restoration experts, it was painted over in black. Roderick Ryan, an expert on special effects, for which he won the Academy Award in 2000, told Noel Twyman back around 1996 that the "blob" and the blood spray had been painted in. They are both obviously right. I have no idea why you are willing to reject the witnesses who reported the limo stop, because they are abundant and compelling. The film was faked.

If the "you" is still addressing me, please do not assume I am "willing to reject" witnesses. I rather feel you are putting words into my mouth and assuming I hold opinions which I have not stated. This may not have been your intention, but I find it rather disconcerting.

I am not a psychologist, but I am an expert on rationality, which can be measured by objective standards.

Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

(...edit...)

Cheers, -- D.M.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

[Noted. As an academic and expert on rationality, I would hope you have noticed that there have been no shortage of individuals who have made contributions to rationality and science in specific areas while at the same time holding superstitious/irrational views on other subjects, from classical antiquity to modern times. Not being a psychologist, perhaps some caution might be appropriate in assigning specific motives to other individuals when you perceive them to have moments when their rationality does not reach your personal standards.

quote name=Daniel Meyer' date='24 November 2011 - 09:35 PM' timestamp='1322188528' post='238831]

If anyone can translate the above

into plain english

I WILL GIVE YOU FIFTY BUCKS!