Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Gus Grissom knew the lander was a lemon and even hung one on his desk. We all know what happened to him.

Werner von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks, which had been disgorged from the

surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids and were captured by Earth's gravitational attraction, so

the astronauts "returning from the moon" could substantiate their visit by producing genuine "moon rocks"! It

never ceases to amaze me how many are so easily taken in. If you don't like "Moodoggie", try some of the rest.

There is an astounding body of evidence that man has never landed on the moon, if you actually pay attention.

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.

Edited December 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='02 December 2011 - 08:14 PM' timestamp='1322853265'

[...]

Dang! Readin' this here whatchmacallit? "thread?" is more dang fun than a dad-gumm barrel o' them-there monkeys I done seen down there at the gaal-durn zoo!

--Tommy O'Pepper

Edited December 2, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks. They are all working now.

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...

[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.

We only have access to the notes taken from the interview, Pat. They are handwritten. Pages 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7 of the following link to the Baylor Armstrong collection:

http://contentdm.baylor.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/15poage-arm&CISOPTR=15588&REC=1

Thanks, Lee. Here's what I have now on Witt. These are not the comments of someone trying to make people think there was no conspiracy, IMO.

(Handwritten notes by an HSCA investigator on an 8-12-78 interview with Witt, found on the Baylor University website, in the John Armstrong collection) "I had just about decided to leave and go back to work. Then it arrived and kinda took me by surprised. I first saw it rounding that turn at the top of the hill (Elm St.). I got up--been sitting on the grass all this time. I (picked?) up my umbrella--walking forward toward the curb. I did get it open--I think it blocked my view--and heard this string of firecrackers go off. I (thought?) 'what a damn foolish thing for someone to be playing (games?) at a time like this. As I moved to the edge of the little retaining wall, the vehicles had passed to my right now. The effect began to get to me; The President's car stopped--a motorcycle man swirved toward me--The second car nearly hit the first and a man ran up and jumped on the President's car. I don't think I saw everything--that damn umbrella got in my way. The next thing I recall was a bright pink movement in the car--JFK's car--I think it was Jackie's pink dress...My military training included 'Hit the dirt!' when you hear shots. It didn't occur to me that these were shots.' (Later, apparently in reference to the shots) 'I had no sense of direction--source--or number. All in one location--I think.'" (9-25-78 testimony before the HSCA, vol. 4 p.329-352) “'As I moved to the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time it didn’t register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers…As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements, I did not see this because of this thing in front of me. The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran up on the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things." (Later, when asked if he could tell from where the shots were being fired) "No, sir, really couldn't. Of course, there were a number of shots and they all seemed to be just rapid--just very close spaced. As to the direction, I couldn't say." (When asked how many shots he heard) "I really couldn't say. Just remembering--I would have to say three or more." (When asked if they were in rapid succession) "Very. As I recall, very rapid." (When asked to demonstrate the speed on the table) "I don't know if I could really give you a good example, but it was just [witness wraps three times rapidly on table]."

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Betzner 3 was taken at Z186, about four Z frames before JFK was shot in the throat, and at around 4 seconds before he was shot in the back.

What prevented the throat shot from causing the jacket to fall? Why is Craig's observation of bunch in Betzner relevant at all?

Of course, Craig will sneer at all this, given his die-hard Nutter fixation with the Single Bullet Theory.

[Craig Lamson]

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

Betzner 3 was taken at Z186, about four Z frames before JFK was shot in the throat, and at around 4 seconds before he was shot in the back.

What prevented the throat shot from causing the jacket to fall? Why is Craig's observation of bunch in Betzner relevant at all?

Of course, Craig will sneer at all this, given his die-hard Nutter fixation with the Single Bullet Theory.

All fine and dandy Cliff, except for you time line and sequence of events being pure speculation.

Aside from that hey, go for it.

But thanks for finally admitting the folded exists at Betzner. You will be seeing a lot of this in the future.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From David W. Mantik, "How to Think Like John McAdams" <My link>

The Back Wound

In the autopsy photograph (Appendix 5, Figure 2), the back wound appears to lie at about T1 (i.e., the first thoracic vertebra), just above the level of the scapular spine. This seriously disagrees with the T3 on the death certificate, which was prepared by Admiral Burkley (p. 221). Two individuals even placed it at T4: James Jenkins and, in a conversation with me, John Ebersole (who practiced my specialty of radiation oncology). For normal anatomy see Appendix 5, Figures 3A and 3B. As is well known, the back wound in the autopsy photo is noticeably higher than the holes in the shirt or jacket. Furthermore, the wound on the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet (prepared by Boswell at the autopsy; see Appendix 5, Figure 4) appears to lie well below T1—at least as low as T2, if not even lower. An online source assigns a typical level to the scapular spine as T3 (manualmed.blogspot.com/2008/09/thoracic-spine-landmarks.html). In fact, any level for this back wound below T1 would destroy the SBT (because the back wound would then be lower than the throat wound). However, Boswell later elevated this wound, thus abandoning his earlier, on-site observation. Somewhat amusingly, on this second occasion Boswell elevated this back wound far too high (compared to the autopsy photo), actually into the neck, which only raises questions about either his memory or his honesty. (See these two incompatible placements by Boswell at Inside the ARRB by Douglas Horne, Volume I, Figure 56.) A likely explanation for the discrepancy between the photo and the Descriptive Sheet is post-autopsy (illicit) photo alteration in the dark room. Curiously, this is the precise autopsy photo that displays an anomalous object on the back (not noted by prior investigations), which might be a leftover image from photographic tampering. Further discussion of this follows below.

Another point is worth emphasizing: physical tests showed no copper deposits on the shirt or on the collar (in the front), even though they were present on the back of JFK’s jacket. This is consistent with a metal projectile as the source for the back wound, but it is inconsistent with a metal projectile through the front of the shirt. On the contrary, the slits had probably been created by the nurses’ scalpels. In an interview in 1971, Carrico actually confirmed this to Harold Weisberg—see Weisberg’s Subject Index File, under “Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (Jerry McKnight reports this.) In addition, based on my personal observations at the Archives, some cloth is missing from both the back of the shirt and the back of the jacket, but none appears missing from the slits at the collar. Furthermore, although McAdams claims that a throat wound at C7/T1 is feasible, he totally ignores the anatomic conundrums in the horizontal plane. (For pertinent, and rather devastating, anatomy and radiology images see Appendix 5, Figures 5-7.) For a more precise vertical level for the throat wound see MIDP (p. 228). James H. Fetzer has also offered a concise analysis of this evidence in “Reasoning about Assassinations,” which he presented at Cambridge and then published in an international, peer-reviewed journal (The International Journal of the Humanities (2005-2006), Volume 3, Issue 10, pp. 31-40).

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

Betzner 3 was taken at Z186, about four Z frames before JFK was shot in the throat, and at around 4 seconds before he was shot in the back.

What prevented the throat shot from causing the jacket to fall? Why is Craig's observation of bunch in Betzner relevant at all?

Of course, Craig will sneer at all this, given his die-hard Nutter fixation with the Single Bullet Theory.

All fine and dandy Cliff, except for you time line and sequence of events being pure speculation.

Aside from that hey, go for it.

But thanks for finally admitting the folded exists at Betzner. You will be seeing a lot of this in the future.

Edited December 2, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Craig Lamson]

From David W. Mantik, "How to Think Like John McAdams" <My link>

The Back Wound

In the autopsy photograph (Appendix 5, Figure 2), the back wound appears to lie at about T1 (i.e., the first thoracic vertebra), just above the level of the scapular spine. This seriously disagrees with the T3 on the death certificate, which was prepared by Admiral Burkley (p. 221). Two individuals even placed it at T4: James Jenkins and, in a conversation with me, John Ebersole (who practiced my specialty of radiation oncology). For normal anatomy see Appendix 5, Figures 3A and 3B. As is well known, the back wound in the autopsy photo is noticeably higher than the holes in the shirt or jacket. Furthermore, the wound on the Autopsy Descriptive Sheet (prepared by Boswell at the autopsy; see Appendix 5, Figure 4) appears to lie well below T1—at least as low as T2, if not even lower. An online source assigns a typical level to the scapular spine as T3 (manualmed.blogspot.com/2008/09/thoracic-spine-landmarks.html). In fact, any level for this back wound below T1 would destroy the SBT (because the back wound would then be lower than the throat wound). However, Boswell later elevated this wound, thus abandoning his earlier, on-site observation. Somewhat amusingly, on this second occasion Boswell elevated this back wound far too high (compared to the autopsy photo), actually into the neck, which only raises questions about either his memory or his honesty. (See these two incompatible placements by Boswell at Inside the ARRB by Douglas Horne, Volume I, Figure 56.) A likely explanation for the discrepancy between the photo and the Descriptive Sheet is post-autopsy (illicit) photo alteration in the dark room. Curiously, this is the precise autopsy photo that displays an anomalous object on the back (not noted by prior investigations), which might be a leftover image from photographic tampering. Further discussion of this follows below.

Another point is worth emphasizing: physical tests showed no copper deposits on the shirt or on the collar (in the front), even though they were present on the back of JFK’s jacket. This is consistent with a metal projectile as the source for the back wound, but it is inconsistent with a metal projectile through the front of the shirt. On the contrary, the slits had probably been created by the nurses’ scalpels. In an interview in 1971, Carrico actually confirmed this to Harold Weisberg—see Weisberg’s Subject Index File, under “Carrico,” items 02 and 03. (Jerry McKnight reports this.) In addition, based on my personal observations at the Archives, some cloth is missing from both the back of the shirt and the back of the jacket, but none appears missing from the slits at the collar. Furthermore, although McAdams claims that a throat wound at C7/T1 is feasible, he totally ignores the anatomic conundrums in the horizontal plane. (For pertinent, and rather devastating, anatomy and radiology images see Appendix 5, Figures 5-7.) For a more precise vertical level for the throat wound see MIDP (p. 228). James H. Fetzer has also offered a concise analysis of this evidence in “Reasoning about Assassinations,” which he presented at Cambridge and then published in an international, peer-reviewed journal (The International Journal of the Humanities (2005-2006), Volume 3, Issue 10, pp. 31-40).

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

Betzner 3 was taken at Z186, about four Z frames before JFK was shot in the throat, and at around 4 seconds before he was shot in the back.

What prevented the throat shot from causing the jacket to fall? Why is Craig's observation of bunch in Betzner relevant at all?

Of course, Craig will sneer at all this, given his die-hard Nutter fixation with the Single Bullet Theory.

All fine and dandy Cliff, except for you time line and sequence of events being pure speculation.

Aside from that hey, go for it.

But thanks for finally admitting the folded exists at Betzner. You will be seeing a lot of this in the future.

Notice the rapidly waving hands...LMAO!

[Cliff Varnell]

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

Betzner 3 was taken at Z186, about four Z frames before JFK was shot in the throat, and at around 4 seconds before he was shot in the back.

What prevented the throat shot from causing the jacket to fall? Why is Craig's observation of bunch in Betzner relevant at all?

Of course, Craig will sneer at all this, given his die-hard Nutter fixation with the Single Bullet Theory.

All fine and dandy Cliff, except for you time line and sequence of events being pure speculation.

Aside from that hey, go for it.

But thanks for finally admitting the folded exists at Betzner. You will be seeing a lot of this in the future.

The testimony of Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett along with the Altgens 6 photo (Z255)

help put the back shot after Z55. And why would you care to label it speculation, Craig, if the SBT didn't mean anything to you?

The fact is you're trying to pass yourself off as objective but your rhetoric gives you away.

Of course a fold existed in Betzner. It was slightly less than 3/4". And the jacket fell another fraction of an inch after the throat shot.

Bullet hole in shirt -- 4" below the collar.

Bullet hole in jacket 4.125" below the collar. The jacket was bunched up 1/8" when JFK was hit in the back.

Keep blowing smoke, Craig. Tink Thompson owns every wisp of it.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

I apologize if I was less than charitable in my interpretation of your "processing" out loud. However, there is yet another issue involved here that might have slipped through the cracks. If one depends upon the identity of Umbrella Man to help to establish the identity of the Dark Complected Man, and vice versa, then it is very important. For instance, some have appeared to be convinced that the Dark Complected Man is a CUBAN. Now, I am not speaking figuratively here nor am I merely using "Cuban" as a moniker to specify to which individual I am referring. I am saying that many believe that the man holding his fist in the air in front of Umbrella Man is of Cuban descent. They hold this opinion given the circumstances surrounding the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. However, that is specious, at best, in my view. He could be Cuban. But by no means can that be established based on the thin evidence that we now have which consists of only two things: He is dark complected and many anti-Castro Cubans hated JFK. That is not nearly enough. But, if we go a step farther (which I do not recommend) and actually attempt to identify this so-called "Cuban" as Felipe Vidal Santiago, as others have done, we have another problem. If we had assumed that TUM was NOT Steve Witt and instead was Roy Hargraves, a Santiago associate, then we have a tidy little package. Santiago was with Hargraves and Hargraves was with Santiago. However, once TUM becomes Witt the identification of Santiago falls apart, as it should, and the identification of Hargraves also falls apart. If the argument supporting the presence of Santiago resides in his "complexion" and the presence of Hargraves...and if Hargraves is not present because TUM is Witt--then...we don't know who they are. I don't like "best guesses" either.

As you know, I do not believe that TUM was Roy Hargraves, nor do I believe he was Gordon Novel...and most certainly not Witt. I don't believe that the Dark Complected Man was Santiago either. Was he Cuban? I don't know. But, it has never been a crime to be Cuban. Hell, I am dark complected, but not Cuban!

GO_SECURE

monk

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 3, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Craig Lamson]

Gus Grissom knew the lander was a lemon and even hung one on his desk. We all know what happened to him.

Werner von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks, which had been disgorged from the

surface of the moon by the impact of small asteroids and were captured by Earth's gravitational attraction, so

the astronauts "returning from the moon" could substantiate their visit by producing genuine "moon rocks"! It

never ceases to amaze me how many are so easily taken in. If you don't like "Moodoggie", try some of the rest.

There is an astounding body of evidence that man has never landed on the moon, if you actually pay attention.

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.

Can you be any more ignorant? Grissom thought the LANDER was a lemon and even hung one on his desk? More proof that Fetzer knows nothing about this.

Edited December 2, 2011 by Craig Lamson

[Greg Burnham]

Jim,

Just my suggestion for a friend:

STOP TAKING THE BAIT! Be the rational one here.

This is NOT the JFKresearch Forum where thread integrity was respected by the members--and when it wasn't respected by provocateurs, thread integrity was enforced!

This thread is NOT about the moon landings. Stop talking about it here. FWIW

[Craig Lamson]

Jim,

Be the rational one here.

ROFLMAO!

ROFLMAO!

ROFLMAO!

[Kevin Greenlee]

Jim,

I assume you believe in the importance of truth and accuracy. Will you admit that the author of that piece you so approvingly linked to made an embarassing error when he claimed that all of the videos from all the Apollo missions have been lost? Will you further agree that any conclusions he drew from that mistaken "fact" are, at best, flawed?

On the other hand, if you have proof that he is right and I am wrong, could you offer proof that those videos are in fact missing (even though, as I noted, those "lost" films are actually available for sale from companies such as Spacecraft films).

Perhaps- instead of blindly believing whatever nonsense people peddle to you- you should consider doing some research to verify what they are telling you. It might prevent you from humilating yourself by publicly subscribing to nonsense like "the moon landings were faked."

For your information, the sort of minimal research I referred to would have caught some errors of fact and reasoning in your recent post. You misidentify the vehicle Grissom hung the lemon on. You also repeat the wild tale that NASA sent a world famous engineer on a top secret geology mission. Not only is there absolutely no evidence that such a mission even existed but even if it did it defies common sense that NASA would have chosen someone other than an "unknown" geologist to undertake what would surely have been a most sensitive and confidential task.

And, Greg-- Jim was the one who brought up the topic of the moon landings. Earlier he posted some nonsense about 9/11; be grateful that no one challenged him on that tripe.

[Greg Parker]

Well, any researcher worth their salt knows that Paul died, so I thought I'd go with the Elvis question which is still up in the air.

I often see the Paul imposter looking out from behind the curtains at Forthlin Road giving the finger to curious onlookers.

Once we find the people who painted those marks on the curb we can all rest easy that the case is solved and go on and do something far more interesting with our lives, Greg. The question of where Beverly bought her shoes is an interesting one - Hardy's is a good shout although I hear the people behind the counter seemed more knowledgable of computers than they were shoes. The Shoe Haven is a possibility - but the word on the street regarding this place was before the salesman would sell you anything you had to agree to meet him in a car round the back to attend the local communist cell meeting.

LOL! I'll drink to all that

Thanks, Lee. Here's what I have now on Witt. These are not the comments of someone trying to make people think there was no conspiracy, IMO.

(Handwritten notes by an HSCA investigator on an 8-12-78 interview with Witt, found on the Baylor University website, in the John Armstrong collection) "I had just about decided to leave and go back to work. Then it arrived and kinda took me by surprised. I first saw it rounding that turn at the top of the hill (Elm St.). I got up--been sitting on the grass all this time. I (picked?) up my umbrella--walking forward toward the curb. I did get it open--I think it blocked my view--and heard this string of firecrackers go off. I (thought?) 'what a damn foolish thing for someone to be playing (games?) at a time like this. As I moved to the edge of the little retaining wall, the vehicles had passed to my right now. The effect began to get to me; The President's car stopped--a motorcycle man swirved toward me--The second car nearly hit the first and a man ran up and jumped on the President's car. I don't think I saw everything--that damn umbrella got in my way. The next thing I recall was a bright pink movement in the car--JFK's car--I think it was Jackie's pink dress...My military training included 'Hit the dirt!' when you hear shots. It didn't occur to me that these were shots.' (Later, apparently in reference to the shots) 'I had no sense of direction--source--or number. All in one location--I think.'" (9-25-78 testimony before the HSCA, vol. 4 p.329-352) “'As I moved to the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time it didn’t register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers…As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements, I did not see this because of this thing in front of me. The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran up on the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things." (Later, when asked if he could tell from where the shots were being fired) "No, sir, really couldn't. Of course, there were a number of shots and they all seemed to be just rapid--just very close spaced. As to the direction, I couldn't say." (When asked how many shots he heard) "I really couldn't say. Just remembering--I would have to say three or more." (When asked if they were in rapid succession) "Very. As I recall, very rapid." (When asked to demonstrate the speed on the table) "I don't know if I could really give you a good example, but it was just [witness wraps three times rapidly on table]."

Pat,

correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall anyone claiming that the purpose of Witt's testimony was to disabuse the committee or the populace of ALL conspiracy considerations.

The purpose (from the HSCA POV) was to shut the critics up about TUM. Witt's (or whoever put him up to it) purpose was similar. Whereas for the times, the WC had to find "no conspiracy"... so, for the times, the HSCA had to find either "no conspiracy" or a limited one involving criminal rather than political elements. TUM did not point to criminal elements.

The extent of the charade should have been obvious when the committee asked Witt if the umbrella had even housed a weapon. Did they really expect him to admit it, whether or not it WAS ever a weapon? No one is expected to self-incriminate on the stand. Witt was no exception.