Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Cliff Varnell]

Well Lammy just hijacked another thread.

Here we go, again, Lammy vs Varnell.

I'm done with him. My comments are directed toward Tink.

Or you, for that matter. Tell us what simple facts could be more "sinister"?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Its called a FOLD cliff,

Two folds. The shirt and the jacket. 3+" each. Entirely above the SBT inshoot at the base of the neck even though the jacket collar -- as you stipulate -- was in a normal position just above the base of the neck.

The burden of proof is on Tink Thompson to show us how a half-foot wad of clothing fabric and JFK's jacket collar occupied the same physical space at the same time.

Tink?

Same physical space? Earth to cliff...Earth to cliff....

Attn Tink: please note the rhetoric. Don't hold your breath waiting for an actual argument and certainly you will never see any kind of replication involving custom made clothing, because, as Craig Lamson has discovered many times, he can't get custom made clothing to move more than a fraction of an inch.

Oh cliff, the actual argument has gone on for YEARS and you have lost. And no you won't see a replication since we can't put JFK back in that seat. We can however can , and I have done proof of concept photography. Poor cliff can't refute that either. Nor can he provide any proof of concept evidence that shows how anything other than a 3"+fold on the back of JFK's jacket can create the shadow seen In Betzner. It's a slam dunk and cliff is toast.

BTW, if you are going to continue your "overselling" do it on your crazy ideas instead of making up stuff out of thin air about what I have or have not done.

Oh custom made clothing will not move more than a fraction of an inch eh? How much has JFK's shirt moved on the airplane? What is that 2.5 or three inchs of his CUSTOM SHIRT folded up?

One fold. I can't prove one way or the other the condition of the shirt nor will I try. Of course neither can you.

Attn Tink: The bullet hole in the jacket is 4.125" below the bottom of the collar.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 4" below the bottom of the collar.

You don't need anyone to draw you a diagram as to the significance of this, I'm sure.

If you BELIEVE the shirt was folded along with the jacket, have at.

[Craig Lamson]

Well Lammy just hijacked another thread.

Here we go, again, Lammy vs Varnell.

What a joke you are jimbo...

I hijacked the thread? Why don't you review it again and see who brought this subject into this thread. It was not me.

And then I will accept your apology.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Craig Lamson]

Well Lammy just hijacked another thread.

Here we go, again, Lammy vs Varnell.

I'm done with him. My comments are directed toward Tink.

Or you, for that matter. Tell us what simple facts could be more "sinister"?

ROFLMAO! That's a good idea cliff, best to get out before you look even worse. You simply can't win this game any more.

[Greg Burnham]

Another thread has run its course.

The same "de-railers" have thrown in their two cents.

What have we learned:

1) Tink displayed a dismally poor representation of his current BIG PICTURE view, if that view is consistent with a conspiracy;

2) or his performance was consistent with someone who has yet to have formed an opinion;

3) or his position is being (pseudo) cleverly suggested via imprecise inference, which is as useless as a lame rented mule;

4) Fetzer has flip-flopped on the issue concerning Umbrella Man's:

a-- IDENTITY (Roy Hargraves, Steve Witt)

b-- presence in Dealey Plaza (if Witt)

c-- value as a witness to other collateral evidence of special interest (to Fetzer and others, I.e., Z-film alteration)

5) Lifton continues to act quite the "conspiratorial FOP" -- concerned primarily with appearance not with substance

Witt remains an anomaly. He was most probably not even there, but maybe he was--no matter, he is of no consequence.

In my view: TUM was an operative. Dark Complected Man (NOT "the Cuban"! since we can not possibly discern his ethnicity/nationality from the evidence) was an operative due to his behavior.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[David Lifton]

Another thread has run its course.

The same "de-railers" have thrown in their two cents.

What have we learned:

1) Tink displayed a dismally poor representation of his current BIG PICTURE view, if that view is consistent with a conspiracy;

2) or his performance was consistent with someone who has yet to have formed an opinion;

3) or his position is being (pseudo) cleverly suggested via imprecise inference, which is as useless as a lame rented mule;

4) Fetzer has flip-flopped on the issue concerning Umbrella Man's:

a-- IDENTITY (Roy Hargraves, Steve Witt)

b-- presence in Dealey Plaza (if Witt)

c-- value as a witness to other collateral evidence of special interest (to Fetzer and others, I.e., Z-film alteration)

5) Lifton continues to act quite the "conspiratorial FOP" -- concerned primarily with appearance not with substance

Witt remains an anomaly. He was most probably not even there, but maybe he was--no matter, he is of no consequence.

In my view: TUM was an operative. Dark Complected Man (NOT "the Cuban"! since we can not possibly discern his ethnicity/nationality from the evidence) was an operative due to his behavior.

Greg Burnham:

Months ago, I asked, more than once, as I recall, if you believe we went to the moon. You replied that you could not provide an answer, because you had not had the time to give the matter adequate study.

Perhaps the time has come for you to do so, before holding forth with multiple opinions on other matters in the Kennedy case, such as whether Steve Wittt was in Dealey Plaza, as he testified.

So, Mr. Burnham—you who say you took Kennedy and what he stood for so seriously: Did we go to the moon, and multiple times?

Or is all of that a fraud, and a vast media conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know. And I do look forward to your response.

DSL

[Greg Parker]

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.

Yes. There was just no end to those protests in Dallas about Nazi appeasement policies. You really couldn't move for them.

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.

How I missed this the first time, I'm not sure, but it's freaking hilarious. Yes, that loading zone was mighhhhty suspicious, David. Mighty... Well done!!!!

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.

Oh most certainly. Of all the loading zones in all the world, this one was mighhhty suspicious. Mighty... ROFL

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

[Ray Mitcham]

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

[Greg Parker]

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

Firstly, Ray, are there really yellow lines there? I wasn't entire sure of the exact location being referred to (I rarely bother looking at the z film), but happily took David's word that the lines existed.

Yellow lines on a curb indicate a loading zone in Texas, and just about everywhere else on Earth.

[Greg Parker]

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

Firstly, Ray, are there really yellow lines there? I wasn't entire sure of the exact location being referred to (I rarely bother looking at the z film), but happily took David's word that the lines existed.

Yellow lines on a curb indicate a loading zone in Texas, and just about everywhere else on Earth.

Okay. I found them. Solid blocks of yellow markers, rather than lines or "stripes", so I withdraw "loading zone". Still non-sinister, though. Most likely indicate sweeping curve in the road.

[Greg Parker]

Greg, just as a matter of interest, why would there be a loading zone in the middle of an underpass road? Loading zone for what?

Firstly, Ray, are there really yellow lines there? I wasn't entire sure of the exact location being referred to (I rarely bother looking at the z film), but happily took David's word that the lines existed.

Yellow lines on a curb indicate a loading zone in Texas, and just about everywhere else on Earth.

Okay. I found them. Solid blocks of yellow markers, rather than lines or "stripes", so I withdraw "loading zone". Still non-sinister, though. Most likely indicate sweeping curve in the road.

Don't know about you, Greg, but I'm getting the impression "some" of our members are not particularly happy about us discussing certain things?

Do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster? You need to tell everyone - right now...

Damn you're good with these trick - but highly relevant questions!

First I have to know whether you're talking about "Lochy" or "Nessie". It was definitely "Nessie" spotted at that WWII surplus sub dealership and making a big song and dance about haggis being superior to bully beef...

[Greg Burnham]

Another thread has run its course.

The same "de-railers" have thrown in their two cents.

What have we learned:

1) Tink displayed a dismally poor representation of his current BIG PICTURE view, if that view is consistent with a conspiracy;

2) or his performance was consistent with someone who has yet to have formed an opinion;

3) or his position is being (pseudo) cleverly suggested via imprecise inference, which is as useless as a lame rented mule;

4) Fetzer has flip-flopped on the issue concerning Umbrella Man's:

a-- IDENTITY (Roy Hargraves, Steve Witt)

b-- presence in Dealey Plaza (if Witt)

c-- value as a witness to other collateral evidence of special interest (to Fetzer and others, I.e., Z-film alteration)

5) Lifton continues to act quite the "conspiratorial FOP" -- concerned primarily with appearance not with substance

Witt remains an anomaly. He was most probably not even there, but maybe he was--no matter, he is of no consequence.

In my view: TUM was an operative. Dark Complected Man (NOT "the Cuban"! since we can not possibly discern his ethnicity/nationality from the evidence) was an operative due to his behavior.

Greg Burnham:

Months ago, I asked, more than once, as I recall, if you believe we went to the moon. You replied that you could not provide an answer, because you had not had the time to give the matter adequate study.

Perhaps the time has come for you to do so, before holding forth with multiple opinions on other matters in the Kennedy case, such as whether Steve Wittt was in Dealey Plaza, as he testified.

So, Mr. Burnham—you who say you took Kennedy and what he stood for so seriously: Did we go to the moon, and multiple times?

Or is all of that a fraud, and a vast media conspiracy?

Inquiring minds want to know. And I do look forward to your response.

DSL

While we are going off topic, David, why don't you tell us if you believe in Jesus?

[Bernice Moore]

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

David these are Jacks work; the yellow stripes; take care..b

anyone can go to the thread if interested, sorry no intention of breaking thread,..b

http://educationforu...=1

Edited December 1, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

double deleted...b

Edited December 1, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Greg Parker]

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

David these are Jacks work; the yellow stripes; take care..b

anyone can go to the thread if interested, sorry no intention of breaking thread,..b

http://educationforu...=1

Thanks Bernice.

I see Bill Miller agrees with me regarding the markers (I find the description of them being "stripes" a little misleading). Further searching on the web found another group discussion of them in which it was again suggested that they were indicators of curve in the road. It was also stated that Don R's map shows that there were in fact a total of eight. of them

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3859.0.html

One last thing -- the story about Beverley Oliver stepping in wet yellow paint on 11/22, ruining her shoes and (presumably many years later) showing them to Fetzer who then had a sample tested and analysed along with a scraping from one of the markers, is a truly a remarkable story.

Just getting my head around what time the paint must have been applied for it to still be wet enough to ruin shoes - how the drizzle that morning didn't make any of the paint splotch or run despite being wet... why Ms Oliver would keep a ruined pair of shoes for however many years...

There is almost a religious dynamic at play.... tears of blood from the statue of the Virgin being tested by the Crusading Scientist...