Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Greg Parker]

Well, if that's the case I can now look at the evidence you put forth in the JFK case with an open mind. If you'd have said "Lochy" was seen in the sub dealership then unfortunately I'd have to completely dismiss anything you might have to say about the assassination and write underhanded comments about your credibility as a researcher.

I hope you understand, but that's just the way it has to be. Over the coming weeks I will demand that you show your hand concerning the following:

Alien abductions, Bigfoot, Princess Di being murdered by MI6, God, the resurrection of Elvis, whether the movie ET is based on a true story, and many, many more. Be on your guard and choose your answers carefully.

Wanna talk about yellow paint?

Have to say, I'm a bit disturbed that you have "God" right next to "resurrection of Elvis" and you come from the heart of Beatle country! Other than that, I think you have the makings of a damn fine country & western theme song for the Tea Party in that list...

Yellow paint? Did you follow Bernice's link to a past discussion? Poor Beverley Oliver's ruined shoes! That in itself is grounds enough to forget trying to verify Witt's story. David was right. Justice demands we get those yellow marker painters and dish out Dallas-style retribution for Bev... (wonder if she bought them at Hardy's? Another research project right there...)

Edited December 1, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Dean Hagerman]

Alien abductions, Bigfoot, Princess Di being murdered by MI6, God, the resurrection of Elvis, whether the movie ET is based on a true story, and many, many more. Be on your guard and choose your answers carefully.

1. Alien abductions: I do not believe in single Alien Abduction case, and I have read all of the famous ones

2. Bigfoot: I was born and raised in the heart of Big Foot Country (and still live here) I going to say there is a 50/50 chance of Bigfoot

3. Princess Di being murdered by MI6: No way

4. God: I do not believe in God at all

5. The resurrection of Elvis: After some hard thought im going to say............ No

6. Whether the movie ET is based on a true story: Im going to say........ Maybe

Lee I thought long and hard about each answer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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

Well said Mr. Parker, well said indeed.

BTW, I knew Beverly (and her shoes) BEFORE she became a virgin.

[Pat Speer]

When Steven Louis Witt was interviewed in August, 1978, the month before his HSCA appearance he is certainly not as specific when he said where he heard this story from someone at work of an umbrella protest in Phoenix or Tuscon.

His quote in his pre-HSCA interview was, "Mr. Kennedy was just not liked by the Dallas people in general. Everyone kept saying how he was coming to town, but enthusiasm was there. Somewhere along the way, they said Phoenix and Tuscon heckled him with umbrellas. Don't recall who said it but it was supposed to have been effective."

Were the Phoenix and Tuscon "umbrella" protests "effective"? Surely this could be corroborated?

I agree that Witt working for an insurance company isn't enough of a motive to lie. The guy served between May 1943 and February 1946. He joined the reserve Air Force in 1949 and was at Hensley Field which was a Naval Air Station.

He was called to active duty May 1, 1951 until August or September, 1952 as part of a supply squadron with the same serial number.

He got a Government job in 1948 in the Department of the Navy. Working for three months at Lone Star Steel Company - Testing Jet Engines in wind tunnels. He was classified as Industrial Nurse. He had a confidential clearance when working for Chance Vought Aircraft Company where he inspected spare parts and it was while he was at Chance Vought he was recalled back to active duty.

I'd hardly put him down as strictly an Insurance man, Pat. He does have more of a background.

Hey, Lee, can you provide a link to that August 78 interview with Witt? I'm not sure if I've ever read it, and I can't find it online. Thanks.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, to say I have "changed my position" when I previously did not have a position--only a preliminary belief about their identity--

is rather uncharitable. I have been thinking out loud and sorting out the evidence IN THIS THREAD. Having gone though (what I

initially thought was) Tink's preposterous performance (which gives away his role in undermining conspiracy research) about the

Umbrella man, I am now relatively convinced that Witt probably was there. I can't imagine how anyone WHO WAS NOT THERE

could have given that fascinating description of the chaos that attended the limo stop. How else could he have known? That

does not excuse his other extremely suspicious behavior in relation to the Cuban, however. He looks very odd to me. The re-

investigation by the HSCA not only did not pick up on any of that but its performance relative to the medical evidence bothers me

tremendously. David Lifton and I have some differences, in spite of many commonalities, but when Cyril Wecht told me that he

"would have to consult his notes" to explain why they were not blown away by the massive discrepancy between the small hole

observed at Parkland, the enormous cavity described in the autopsy report, and their own tiny entry wound has stunned me. If

David could explain to me what was going on with the HSCA, I would be glad to have his take. I am extremely disillusioned even

with Cyril at this point. He has always seemed to me to be outstanding in the pursuit of JFK truth, but I am no longer convinced.

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 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Because the EFFECTS of a fold having been there WERE NOT PRESENT. So either they were not there at the time

of the shot or your photos have been faked. How many times do I have to explain this? The only interesting

aspect of the bunching issue is whether it led to false inferences about the location of the back shot. But the

location of the back shot clearly aligns with the holes in the shirt and the jacket. Therefore, there cannot have

been any "bunching" or "a fold" or whatever. The evidence of the location of the wound is indisputable, where

you claim you only care about the fold! Well, either it did not exist at the time of the shooting or it was faked.

When you are unwilling to confront the evidence I present in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you thereby

completely and totally discredit yourself. You have made no contribution of value here, none whatsoever. So

I really cannot understand why you want to persist in making yourself look either (A) ignorant or ( corrupt.

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.

How do you know the effects of the fold were not present. You don't know WHERE the entry wound REALLY is...

The fold in Betzner is no hypothesis. It a proven...unimpeachable...fact based on the unbending laws of light and shadow and the specific angle of incidence seen in Betzner

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

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

Edited December 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

David,

Even with shooters at six locations (as I have supplemented Richard Sprague's diagram in "Dealey Plaza Revisited:

What happened to JFK?"), the umbrella would have been visible from all of them. The role that he may have been

playing is comparable to that of a forward observer in artillery strikes (so the artillery analogy is appropriate): to,

in this instance, confirm that the target has been destroyed. Once it's done, there is no need for further rounds.

This is not a complicated concept--and it doesn't take having served as an artillery officer in the Marine Corps to

understand--that the pumping may very well have signaled "He's not dead yet, keep shooting!" The shooters at

those locations would not have known if they were hitting their target or not. It's that simple. No mystery here.

There is no good reason to be dismissive of those who are more thoughtful about what may have been going on.

Jim

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

Edited December 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

Because the EFFECTS of a fold having been there WERE NOT PRESENT. So either they were not there at the time

of the shot or your photos have been faked. How many times do I have to explain this? The only interesting

aspect of the bunching issue is whether it led to false inferences about the location of the back shot. But the

location of the back shot clearly aligns with the holes in the shirt and the jacket. Therefore, there cannot have

been any "bunching" or "a fold" or whatever. The evidence of the location of the wound is indisputable, where

you claim you only care about the fold! Well, either it did not exist at the time of the shooting or it was faked.

When you are unwilling to confront the evidence I present in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you thereby

completely and totally discredit yourself. You have made no contribution of value here, none whatsoever. So

I really cannot understand why you want to persist in making yourself look either (A) ignorant or ( corrupt.

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.

How do you know the effects of the fold were not present. You don't know WHERE the entry wound REALLY is...

The fold in Betzner is no hypothesis. It a proven...unimpeachable...fact based on the unbending laws of light and shadow and the specific angle of incidence seen in Betzner

You are kidding...right?

Lets review the fetzer circle.

The holes in the clothing proves the location of the wound....

The location of the wound proves there was no fold...

Fricking amazing.

Never mind the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3'+ fold of fabric on JFK's jacket at Betzner.

Right up there with,

"JFK must have adjusted his coat and shirt moments before he got his brains blown out"

You are a piece of work.

[Craig Lamson]

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

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

Great work jim, 9 links and only 2 work...

[Kevin Greenlee]

Great work jim, 9 links and only 2 work...

The cause of science and reason would have been further advanced if none of the links worked.

Fetzer seemed especially impressed with "Wagging the Moondoggie" and so I checked it out. The author badly misstates the facts about the "missing" Apollo tapes. Contrary to what he suggests, only first generation tapes from the first moon landing are missing-- and NASA retains lower quality video copies of them. All tapes from the other moon landings still exist in quite high quality and are widely available to one and all (google "spacecraft films" for instance). Why on earth is Fetzer convinced by someone who gets this most basic fact wrong?

The author's next big argument is even more laughable. Any one who has read even a little bit about the moon missions realizes the astronauts were highly trained and quite serious professionals who were engaged on complex, expensive and very dangerous journeys; virtually every moment of their time on their missions was planned for them in advance well before they left the ground. And yet for some reason the author of the piece finds it highly damning that these professionals didn't spend more time horsing around on the moon like schoolboys. Huh?

All of this was on the first page of the piece. I didn't bother to read on; life is too short.

[David Andrews]

As with his "Inside Laurel Canyon" series, the Wagging the Moondoggie" author is great at unearthing overlooked individual facts and connections between persons and events, but is diminished as a historian by his extrapolations and unprovable conclusions. Still, the facts and connections he comes up with are worth further, more reasoned consideration. I do find him on firmer ground with Laurel Canyon than with the Space Race, though - people should check out his fertile LC series, though with a dish of salt beside their keyboards.

[Thomas Graves]

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

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

Great work jim, 9 links and only 2 work...

David,

Maybe he forgot to test them right after he posted them.

"Dadgummit! All nine of them little linky things was a-working a couple a days ago!"

--Tommy

Edited December 2, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Another dishonest, actually, massive deceitful post from Craig Lamson. If he were right, how could the holes

in the shirt and jacket align (i) with Boswell's autopsy diagram, (ii) with Sibert and O'Neill's diagram, (iii) with

Admiral Burkeley's death certificiate, (iv) with Thomas Evan Robinson's description of the wounds, and (v) with

the reenactment photographs (by the Warren Commission staff), and (vi) why would Gerald Ford (R-MI) have

had to have the location of the wound re-described from his "uppermost back", which was already an exagger-

ation, when it even turns out (vii) that the "magic bullet" trajectory is not even anatomically possible? I have

never seen a more pointless display of dissembling than Lamson in this thread. He has disgraced himself.

Because the EFFECTS of a fold having been there WERE NOT PRESENT. So either they were not there at the time

of the shot or your photos have been faked. How many times do I have to explain this? The only interesting

aspect of the bunching issue is whether it led to false inferences about the location of the back shot. But the

location of the back shot clearly aligns with the holes in the shirt and the jacket. Therefore, there cannot have

been any "bunching" or "a fold" or whatever. The evidence of the location of the wound is indisputable, where

you claim you only care about the fold! Well, either it did not exist at the time of the shooting or it was faked.

When you are unwilling to confront the evidence I present in "Reasoning about Assassinations", you thereby

completely and totally discredit yourself. You have made no contribution of value here, none whatsoever. So

I really cannot understand why you want to persist in making yourself look either (A) ignorant or ( corrupt.

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.

How do you know the effects of the fold were not present. You don't know WHERE the entry wound REALLY is...

The fold in Betzner is no hypothesis. It a proven...unimpeachable...fact based on the unbending laws of light and shadow and the specific angle of incidence seen in Betzner

You are kidding...right?

Lets review the fetzer circle.

The holes in the clothing proves the location of the wound....

The location of the wound proves there was no fold...

Fricking amazing.

Never mind the unimpeachable fact that there was a 3'+ fold of fabric on JFK's jacket at Betzner.

Right up there with,

"JFK must have adjusted his coat and shirt moments before he got his brains blown out"

You are a piece of work.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Who would have known there were so many turkeys who survived Thanksgiving? And who could care less that

those who know less than the sources I have cited would dispute them? This is very bad. No proof, only more

drivel, which appears to be an area of specialization for the new group that has now appeared here. The weight

of the evidence supports that this was a political stunt and that we did not actually go to the moon. Those who

want to believe in fantasies are welcome to them. I prefer beliefs that are grounded in reason and evidence. The

point of offering links is for those who want to learn more, not for assorted "debunking debunkers" to hold a rally.

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

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

Great work jim, 9 links and only 2 work...

David,

Maybe he forgot to test them right after he posted them. "Dang! All nine of them linky things was a-working a couple a days ago!"

--Tommy

Edited December 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer