Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Greg Burnham]

Having said that, I bet Craig Lamson posts next. He is so predictable. He will take the bait every time.

[Craig Lamson]

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.

I'm TOTALLY discounting everything BUT the unimpeachabble fact that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket at Betzner.

I don't give a flying crap about the disputed location of the back wound. I don't care if there was a magic bullet, or your 6 or 8 "magic bullets" (more of your speculative nonsense)existed. I don't care who killed JFK.

It's far more interesting and entertaining seeing the famous ( or is that infamous) Fetzer caught in a massive case of circular logic.

Face it jimmy, you got caught with your pants down again ). We all know you just repackage the work of others without having the first clue if it is correct or not. Heck I wonder if you have ever had an original thought?

So twaddle away "professor".

"He must have adjusted his shirt and jacket..." I don't care who you are, THAT is funny "professor". ROFLMAO!

Thanks so much for the grins today, you were in high form LOL!

Edited December 1, 2011 by Kathy Beckett
removed ad homs from quote and post

[Craig Lamson]

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.

Of course you did......./sarcasm

[Greg Burnham]

I hope that RCD does not object to my bumping his earlier post. It is just so damn apropos that it deserves another look.

From Robert Charles-Dunne:

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.

Indeed.

[Pat Speer]

I hope that RCD does not object to my bumping his earlier post. It is just so damn apropos that it deserves another look.

From Robert Charles-Dunne:

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.

Indeed.

So is Witt Umbrella Man, or not? If not, how do you think he was recruited to pretend he was Umbrella Man? Were the CTs who first found him "duped" into doing so? Was it just a coincidence then that he looked just like him? Or do you think "they" have files on everyone, and found someone looking just like Umbrella Man to play him?

And then there's Jim's question... If Witt was not the real deal, then WHY did he make claims in his testimony which went against the "official" story? Was he just a bad student? An eccentric, perhaps?

Well, if he was an eccentric, then why the heck shouldn't we believe his story about Neville Chamberlain?

I mean, I come across people all the time, who say and do some mighty weird things... One of these guys, a seemingly nice and intelligent guy, insists he saw an alternative version of the Zapruder film, but is bound by some strange oath into never telling anyone who showed it to him...

(Sorry, Greg. But I'm trying to make a point.)

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson has acknowledged that JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of his neck in all the Elm St. photos.

Craig Lamson also claims that there were 3+ inches of shirt and 3+ inches of jacket fabric bunched up entirely above the SBT inshoot -- at the base of the neck.

Again: JFK's jacket collar, normal position a fraction of an inch above the base of the neck, at the same time 6+ inches of clothing fabric was bunched up above the base of the neck.

Craig Lamson is claiming that these discrete, solid objects -- JFK's jacket collar and more than a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric -- occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

To characterize this claim as "idiotic" is to unduly slander idiots.

[Greg Burnham]

I hope that RCD does not object to my bumping his earlier post. It is just so damn apropos that it deserves another look.

From Robert Charles-Dunne:

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.

Indeed.

So is Witt Umbrella Man, or not? If not, how do you think he was recruited to pretend he was Umbrella Man? Were the CTs who first found him "duped" into doing so? Was it just a coincidence then that he looked just like him? Or do you think "they" have files on everyone, and found someone looking just like Umbrella Man to play him?

And then there's Jim's question... If Witt was not the real deal, then WHY did he make claims in his testimony which went against the "official" story? Was he just a bad student? An eccentric, perhaps?

Well, if he was an eccentric, then why the heck shouldn't we believe his story about Neville Chamberlain?

I mean, I come across people all the time, who say and do some mighty weird things... One of these guys, a seemingly nice and intelligent guy, insists he saw an alternative version of the Zapruder film, but is bound by some strange oath into never telling anyone who showed it to him...

(Sorry, Greg. But I'm trying to make a point.)

Your point is obscure, yet not offensive.

Witt is not the UM. My ignorance as to how he was "recruited" (if he was recruited) is of no consequence. That is an idiotic question.

I am primarily a researcher and I have resisted becoming a witness for many reasons. Mainly, because what I witnessed is mostly inconsequential without the ability to corroborate it. End of story. However, my statement to Jim Fetzer on this forum, regarding the "other film" -- a statement I could have made over the phone, or in private email-- is very relevant to him. It was a "cautionary tale" to be sure.

[Greg Burnham]

I'm sure Craig will post next.

[Craig Lamson]

Craig Lamson is claiming that these discrete, solid objects -- JFK's jacket collar and more than a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric -- occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

To characterize this claim as "idiotic" is to unduly slander idiots.

No cliff, idiotic is your continued attempts to mislead the forum, and it appears yourself.

The folded fabric and the jacket collar did not "occupy the exact same physical space at the exact same time". How silly can you be cliff? Oh wait, no need to answer, I KNOW how silly you are.

This is not rocket science. It appears however it way beyond your ken.

You need to learn to lose gracefully.

[Craig Lamson]

I'm sure Craig will post next.

About you? Why?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thank you, Jim. I had no idea what Pat was talking about--none! This is not the only time, just the latest!

A friend who shall be nameless but who is not an enamored with Tink

as many on this forum sent me the following clip, which I am sharing.

Jim, you need to make up your mind. That clip is of Thompson MOCKING those who, even in the face of evidence there was more than one shooter, refuse to believe a conspiracy is likely.

You can't have it both ways. Does Thompson think conspiracies are possible, and in this case, likely, as he claims, or is he some anti-history zealot believing conspiracies don't exist, but willing to pretend he does, for years and years and years?

P.S. If you had read the comments on the recent Daily Mail article on that terrible Nat Geo program, you'd have found that the vast majority of readers and voters found the images on the Zapruder film evidence for a conspiracy, and that very few cited the alteration of the Zapruder film as evidence of anything. FYI

Pat,

THat is not Tink on this Wave audio excerpt.

I can tell by the voice that it is my friend Mike Parenti.

[David Lifton]

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?

[snip]

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of hatred towards JFK--whether because of his Catholicism or his father's politics--in the Dallas area, and with the Dallas Morning News repeatedly running stories with a spin that made it sound like the federal government was the enemy, and that the Civil War had ended just weeks before.

It does not surprise me in the least that there could be "trickle down" in such an environment, and that the symbolism of the umbrella (and equating that with appeasement) would reach Steven Witt--who would then be naive enough (and foolish enough) to do what he did. If there had been no assassination, and Dealey Plaza was not ground zero in this affair, Witt would be an unnoticed and unreported footnote to history.

Instead, and because of what he did and where he did it, his presence and his behavior is being invested with unnecessary mystery, and his every action put under a microscope.

That's my opinion.

IMHO: It seems obvious to me that there are so many other more important issues to focus upon.

HOWEVER, had I been the HSCA investigator, I would probably have sought corroborating affidavits from at least one third party (e.g., his wife, or a close friend). If Witt spoke of what he did to his dentist (and that's how I heard of it, back in the 1970s), I'm would assume his family (and perhaps some close friends) knew about it, too.

I continue to be baffled why anyone who has given serious thought to how this conspiracy functioned--and here I am referring to the "shooting conspiracy" (and not any other aspect of this case)--would continue to entertain the notion that stationing a man with an umbrella at curbside could possibly serve a legitimate function in this murder plot. But apparently some do. So now certain folks are off and running looking for photos of someone with an umbrella, in Arizona, seeking to verify Witt's story. But what about something that is far more relevant and seems far more significant: that visible in certain frames of the Zapruder film, on the south side of Elm Street and situated at about the location where the car dramatically slowed (if not halted, as I believe to have been the case)--there were one or two yellow stripes painted on the curb. Such stripes, located on the south curb (and easily visible to the driver of the vehicle) could easily have functioned as a "fail safe" signal of some sort. Certainly, these yellow stripes ought to be the central focus of any investigation seeking evidence of a "signal" being transmitted to the driver of the car. And not Steven Witt and his umbrella. But no doubt the colorful image of Steven Witt, waving his umbrella, and supposedly "calling in more fire" (as if this were an artillery strike) will live on in the world of urban legend, while the two yellow stripes on the south curb will continue to be ignored.

DSL

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Very interesting. I don't know--the way he answered the question sounds completely convincing to me. Not about the umbrella, by the way, but about the stop and confusion.

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

Craig Lamson is claiming that these discrete, solid objects -- JFK's jacket collar and more than a half-foot of shirt/jacket fabric -- occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

To characterize this claim as "idiotic" is to unduly slander idiots.

No cliff, idiotic is your continued attempts to mislead the forum, and it appears yourself.

The folded fabric and the jacket collar did not "occupy the exact same physical space at the exact same time".

According to YOU it did. You acknowledge that the jacket collar was in a normal position just above the base of JFK's neck on Elm St. Remember?

That is a fact to which you have stipulated.

You also claim that there were 3+ inches of jacket fabric and 3+ inches of shirt fabric bunched up in tandem entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck.

So, according to Craig Lamson, JFK's jacket collar and 6 inches of shirt/jacket fabric occupied the same physical space, just above the base of JFK's neck, at the same time.

Again: according to Craig Lamson (and by extension, Tink Thompson) discrete, solid objects occupied the same physical space just above the base of JFK's neck -- at the exact same time.

Are you following this, Tink? I hope so. Because you own it.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

There are causes and there are effects. You insist the initial conditions included this bunching,

but the effects of any bunching were not present. So your hypothesis cannot possibly be correct.

Confirming my diagnosis that you are a fraud, 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. You have demonstrated that you are a fraud.

I'm TOTALLY discounting everything BUT the unimpeachabble fact that there was a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back of JFK's jacket at Betzner.

I don't give a flying crap about the disputed location of the back wound. I don't care if there was a magic bullet, or your 6 or 8 "magic bullets" (more of your speculative nonsense)existed. I don't care who killed JFK.

It's far more interesting and entertaining seeing the famous ( or is that infamous) Fetzer caught in a massive case of circular logic.

Face it jimmy, you got caught with your pants down again (and those are sail-like pants). We all know you just repackage the work of others without having the first clue if it is correct or not. Heck I wonder if you have ever had an original thought?

So twaddle away "professor".

"He must have adjusted his shirt and jacket..." I don't care who you are, THAT is funny "professor". ROFLMAO!

Thanks so much for the grins today, you were in high form LOL!