Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Greg Burnham]

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

[Thomas Graves]

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

Question: Does anyone on this thread think they're going to actually convince anyone else on this thread to change their mind about anything related to the JFK assassination? I'd rather watch wrestling on TV and I don't even have a TV.

Oh well, might as well as bump it up to the top spot again. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

--Tommy

P.S. Wow! I just noticed that two heavyweights are writing new posts for this thread as I write this! Greg Parker and David Lifton!

Edited December 3, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Parker]

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

Question: Does anyone on this thread think they're going to actually convince anyone else on this thread to change their mind about anything related to the JFK assassination? I'd rather watch wrestling on TV and I don't even have a TV.

Oh well, might as well as bump it up to the top spot again. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it.

--Tommy

Tommy, I was on the fence at the start of the thread. I'm now off it.

I also now take pride in defending the honor of yellow paint in Dallas and the world over. Yellow paint never killed anyone. It's the men with the "brushes" you have to watch...

But I do so hope DSL includes his yellow paint theory in his book. It will be the perfect entrée to the main course; Skewered Integrity ala Warren, with a side-serve of Bledsoe and other mixed vegetables served on a bed of straw.

[David Lifton]

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.

[snipped--irrelevant]

My experiences with Dr. Cyril Wecht are laid out, chapter and verse, in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence.

I spent a full day with him in early January, 1971, laying out the case that the wounds had been altered.

I showed him documents, and played him tapes: of FBI agent Sibert, for example, questioned by me in 1966, and confronted with the statement that there had been "surgery of the head area," and stating, "The report stands," and much else besides.

The meeting lasted at least 5 hours or more.

Wecht was non-responsive--he was sphinx-like when I made point after point--but requested I send him memos summarizing the points I had made.

In March (1971), I did that, submitting detailed memos of just about everything I had said, memos which (by the way) became the outlines for chapters in Best Evidence.

Then came the events of a year later, when the Kennedy family gave permission for Wecht to visit the Arhives, and examine the autopsy photographs.

In 1972, and at Wecht's request, I spent time preparing detailed briefing notebooks, for his examination of the X-rays and photos at the National Archives. I didn't spend a day or two--I spent weeks, with professional assistance from two people at the UCLA Medical School, preparing two three ring binders, with the issues all laid out.

Then I flew to Pittsburgh, only to find that he hadn't read any of the materials.

I was then the overnight guest in his home; and the next day, we flew together to Washington, D.C.

I stood outside in the hallway while he conducted his examination.

It became clear, at this time, that Dr. Wecht had difficulty reading the X-rays, and could not locate the entry wound on the Xrays. So I took some thread, and tied two knots in the thread, 100 mm apart, so he could place one knot at the EOP, swing an arc, and use it to locate the so-called "wound of entry" at the back of the head. Wecht followed my suggestion, and from his dictated notes, it is clear that he didn't understand what a "wound" would like on X-ray (This is all described in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence).

It also became clear to me that Dr. Wecht did not want to take a stand, publicly, on any of this. He loved to talk about the impossibility of the Single Bullet Theory; but he was not going to deal with the question of whether the evidence, itself, had been altered.

When, after his examination was over, he told me that the pictures definitely showed no hole at the back of the head, I located and called the Navy photographer, John Stringer, who insisted there was such a hole, when he took the pictures.

I called Wecht, who argued with me that perhaps Stringer didn't know anatomical terminology.

I called Stringer back, and he ridiculed the idea that he didn't know such terminology, or had any doubt whatsoever that there wasn't a large hole at the back of the head, which included the "occipital" area.

Both these calls were taped, and were played back to Stringer oath at the time of the ARRB.

But returning to August, 1972. . .:

I then called back Wecht, who still expressed doubts, and --quite obviously-wouldn't "go there."

My last contact with Wecht was in the taxicab, going to his hotel, or the airport. As his request, I had called the New York Times and set up the interview with Fred Graham, who was the NY Times correspondent covering this matter. In my presence, Wecht declared (to Graham) that the autopsy pictures showed that JFK was hit twice from behind--once in the head, and the other time in the back or shoulder.

Wecht would not deal with matters of (in)-authenticity--whether it was the alteration of the body, or anything else.

But Wecht loves publicity, and in subsequent interviews in the days following, he told Graham that the President's brain was missing, and so that became the "peg" for the major NY Times news story about his visit to the National Archives.

Dr. Wecht then co-wrote an article claiming that JFK was hit twice from behind--just as he said in the taxicab interview.

In other words, Wecht lent his "stamp of approval" to the notion that no shots struck from the front.

When I returned to Los Angeles, I wrote a detailed report, of over one hundred pages, spelling out everything that happened on this trip.

That report--which I edited to be "polite"-- became the basis for my chapter 20, which is all about my interaction(s) with Dr. Wecht, over the years (but most importantly, focused on the August, 1972 visit to NARA) and ends with the line that, based on my personal experience, I found Dr. Wecht to be a "sheep in wolf's clothing."

Subsequently, Dr. Wecht made nasty remarks about me, which appear in Gerald Posner's book.

Dr. Wecht has not ever--and probably will never--deal with the central issue in this case, which is the alteration of the President's body prior to autopsy. That is what this case needed--someone with the standard forensic medical credentials who would deal with that issue.

Wecht had seen the data; he knew all about it; he just would not deal with it.

He gives a great speech on the Single Bullet Theory--and has been doing so since 1967. None of that has changed, and I guess we should thank him for that--but that will not really get us to the heart of the matter, which is that the President's body was altered prior to autopsy, and that is why (a) there were no bullets found at autopsy and (b ) the President's wounds, at autopsy, appear to indicate that he was shot twice from behind.

If you don't deal with body alteration, you're swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool.

DSL

Edited December 3, 2011 by David Lifton

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[snipped--irrelevant]

My experiences with Dr. Cyril Wecht are laid out, chapter and verse, in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence.

I spent a full day with him in early January, 1971, laying out the case that the wounds had been altered.

I showed him documents, and played him tapes: of FBI agent Sibert, for example, questioned by me in 1966, and confronted with the statement that there had been "surgery of the head area," and stating, "The report stands," and much else besides.

The meeting lasted at least 5 hours or more.

Wecht was non-responsive--he was sphinx-like when I made point after point--but requested I send him memos summarizing the points I had made.

In March (1971), I did that, submitting detailed memos of just about everything I had said, memos which (by the way) became the outlines for chapters in Best Evidence.

Then came the events of a year later, when the Kennedy family gave permission for Wecht to visit the Arhives, and examine the autopsy photographs.

In 1972, and at Wecht's request, I spent time preparing detailed briefing notebooks, for his examination of the X-rays and photos at the National Archives. I didn't spend a day or two--I spent weeks, with professional assistance from two people at the UCLA Medical School, preparing two three ring binders, with the issues all laid out.

Then I flew to Pittsburgh, only to find that he hadn't read any of the materials.

I was then the overnight guest in his home; and the next day, we flew together to Washington, D.C.

I stood outside in the hallway while he conducted his examination.

It became clear, at this time, that Dr. Wecht had difficulty reading the X-rays, and could not locate the entry wound on the Xrays. So I took some thread, and tied two knots in the thread, 100 mm apart, so he could place one knot at the EOP, swing an arc, and use it to locate the so-called "wound of entry" at the back of the head. Wecht followed my suggestion, and from his dictated notes, it is clear that he didn't understand what a "wound" would like on X-ray (This is all described in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence).

It also became clear to me that Dr. Wecht did not want to take a stand, publicly, on any of this. He loved to talk about the impossibility of the Single Bullet Theory; but he was not going to deal with the question of whether the evidence, itself, had been altered.

When, after his examination was over, he told me that the pictures definitely showed no hole at the back of the head, I located and called the Navy photographer, John Stringer, who insisted there was such a hole, when he took the pictures.

I called Wecht, who argued with me that perhaps Stringer didn't know anatomical terminology.

I called Stringer back, and he ridiculed the idea that he didn't know such terminology, or had any doubt whatsoever that there wasn't a large hole at the back of the head, which included the "occipital" area.

Both these calls were taped, and were played back to Stringer oath at the time of the ARRB.

But returning to August, 1972. . .:

I then called back Wecht, who still expressed doubts, and --quite obviously-wouldn't "go there."

My last contact with Wecht was in the taxicab, going to his hotel, or the airport. As his request, I had called the New York Times and set up the interview with Fred Graham, who was the NY Times correspondent covering this matter. In my presence, Wecht declared (to Graham) that the autopsy pictures showed that JFK was hit twice from behind--once in the head, and the other time in the back or shoulder.

Wecht would not deal with matters of (in)-authenticity--whether it was the alteration of the body, or anything else.

But Wecht loves publicity, and in subsequent interviews in the days following, he told Graham that the President's brain was missing, and so that became the "peg" for the major NY Times news story about his visit to the National Archives.

Dr. Wecht then co-wrote an article claiming that JFK was hit twice from behind--just as he said in the taxicab interview.

In other words, Wecht lent his "stamp of approval" to the notion that no shots struck from the front.

When I returned to Los Angeles, I wrote a detailed report, of over one hundred pages, spelling out everything that happened on this trip.

That report--which I edited to be "polite"-- became the basis for my chapter 20, which is all about my interaction(s) with Dr. Wecht, over the years (but most importantly, focused on the August, 1972 visit to NARA) and ends with the line that, based on my personal experience, I found Dr. Wecht to be a "sheep in wolf's clothing."

Subsequently, Dr. Wecht made nasty remarks about me, which appear in Gerald Posner's book.

Dr. Wecht has not ever--and probably will never--deal with the central issue in this case, which is the alteration of the President's body prior to autopsy. That is what this case needed--someone with the standard forensic medical credentials who would deal with that issue.

Wecht had seen the data; he knew all about it; he just would not deal with it.

He gives a great speech on the Single Bullet Theory--and has been doing so since 1967. None of that has changed, and I guess we should thank him for that--but that will not really get us to the heart of the matter, which is that the President's body was altered prior to autopsy, and that is why (a) there were no bullets found at autopsy and (b ) the President's wounds, at autopsy, appear to indicate that he was shot twice from behind.

If you don't deal with body alteration, you're swimming in the shallow end of the kiddie pool.

DSL

Fascinating. Can I forward this to Cyril?

[David Lifton]

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

What I have asked is definitely not "off topic." It goes to your credibility.

The question is whether you are going to join in with this nonsense that we didn't go to the moon (and multiple times, I might add); whether you're going to claim that you "haven't had the time to study the matter" etc etc.

And while we're on the subject of credibility: do tell us all about the "other film" you claim to have seen. That is another good indicator of credibility (or lack thereof).

DSL

[Greg Burnham]

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

What I have asked is definitely not "off topic." It goes to your credibility.

The question is whether you are going to join in with this nonsense that we didn't go to the moon (and multiple times, I might add); whether you're going to claim that you "haven't had the time to study the matter" etc etc.

And while we're on the subject of credibility: do tell us all about the "other film" you claim to have seen. That is another good indicator of credibility (or lack thereof).

DSL

Fine. Do you still live with your parents, David?

Knock it off.

If you want to know about my experience with the "other film" you can listen at this link. It's all I have to say about the subject. Stop asking.

http://nwopodcast.com/fetz/media/jim%20fetzer%20real%20deal-gov%20ventura%20and%20greg%20burnham.mp3

Edited December 3, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

No, I was not the one who brought up the moon landings. That was David Lifton. These are resources that are valuable for anyone who wants to work through the issues involved there. I have not written on the moon landings, though I do believe that the weight of the evidence works against them. I am not even convinced that they were physically possible. But I am quite certain that, warts and all, the resources that I have identified above are collectively overwhelmingly more reliable as sources than those who are posting here. If any of you have actually published on the moon landings, then post links to your articles or titles for your books. This was not meant to be a diversion, where Monk is right. This thread should remain focused on Tink's performance in The New York Times. There are other parts of the forum for moon landings. So if you want to pursue that issue, do it there.

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.

Edited December 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Come on, David. We all know you are grasping after straws to save face because I have put you down about 9/11 and other subjects. So you think you still have a chance if you play "the moon landing card". Just because most people believe we went to the moon does not mean that we went to the moon. That is the fallacious appeal to popular sentiments. Give it a rest. I find it very curious that the three of us--Tink, you, and I--seem to agree that Witt was (probably) there. Tink and you seem to believe that vindicates his presence and insures he was an innocent. I, however, am not so sure. His association with the Cuban is still suspect, where both of their faces have been partially obliterated in some of the photographs. That means some parties in the position to control those photographs did not want them to be identified. Pumping the umbrella appears to be a patently incriminating gesture, which I take to mean, "Keep shooting, because the target is no yet dead!" That's my interpretation. I may be wrong, but dismissing him as innocent, under these circumstances, is certainly not right. So if you have an argument beyond the transmission from his dentist, I would like to hear it. That's relevant to this thread; 9/11 and moon landings are not. There are interesting issues about the Umbrella man. Let's discuss those here.

It was Lifton, not Fetzer who brought it up. Lifton asked what I believed, which is off topic and of no consequence. Now, back to the topic of this thread please.

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.

What I have asked is definitely not "off topic." It goes to your credibility.

The question is whether you are going to join in with this nonsense that we didn't go to the moon (and multiple times, I might add); whether you're going to claim that you "haven't had the time to study the matter" etc etc.

And while we're on the subject of credibility: do tell us all about the "other film" you claim to have seen. That is another good indicator of credibility (or lack thereof).

DSL

Edited December 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lamson, I have refuted your absurd position a half-dozen times. Why would it matter if his jacket had been bunched UNLESS it had led to false impressions about where he had been shot (which presumably would have been higher than the holes in the jacket and shirt IF THEY HAD BEEN BUNCHED). But I have explained REPEATEDLY that they ACTUALLY MATCH THE LOCATION OF THE WOUND ON THE BODY, which we know from evidence I laid out in "Reasoning about Assassinations". I first presented the paper at Cambridge. It has been published in an international peer-reviewed journal. David Mantik, the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, cites it favorabley. So you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Why you insist on coming back like the whack-a-mole is beyond me, because YOU HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE. NOTHING!

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!

Edited December 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

Sheesh.

Jim,

You started this thread. If it is about TUM and the DCM, why would you choose to engage Lamson in a debate about JFK's clothing here? It is off topic.

These guys will continue to derail this (or any) thread because THEY CAN. No one will moderate thread integrity here. You must "self moderate" your replies--unless you don't care if your topic is hijacked.

A word to the wise.

[Craig Lamson]

Lamson, I have refuted your absurd position a half-dozen times. Why would it matter if his jacket had been bunched UNLESS it led to false impressions about where he had been shot (which presumably would have been higher than the holes in the jacket and shirt if they HAD BEEN BUNCHED). But I have explained REPEATEDLY that they actually MATCH THE LOCATION OF THE WOUND ON THE BODY, which we know from evidence I laid out in "Reasoning about Assassinations". I presented the paper at Cambridge. It has been published in an international peer-reviewed journal. David Mantik, the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, cites it favorabley. So you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG. Why you insist on coming back like the whack-a-mole is beyond me, because YOU HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE. Why do you think it has any merit at all?

I'm obviously wrong...where have I heard that before from you? OH yea, when I destroyed Costella's so called slam dunk piece of crap about the Stemmons sign and the lamp post. Guess what jim, I was right then too and it was YOU who were wrong. Must really suck to be you.

Can you pile it any higher and deeper jim? Sheesh. Your circular logic is unbelievable. After seeing you inability to grasp even the most simple of facts with that Grissom thing, we can pretty much discount you forever.

And still you can't come to grips with a simple and unimpeachable fact, the jacket had a 3"+ fold of fabric in Betzner let alone even come close to refuting it. Your best shot was "JFK adjusted his shirt and jacket" just before he got his brains blown out. That's a real screamer!

Now I understand pretty much everything is beyond your grasp, being a borrower and not a real thinker, so it's pretty much a given that you can't understand how the sun and shadow works. Let me give you your first clue, it rises in the east!

And I'm sure you would rather try and forget my contributions, considering they destroy so much that you hold dear, or at least pimp because you don't know any better.

But thanks for the grins, you have coughed up some real gems in the last few days!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When you're right, you're right, my friend! Lamson is a broken record repeating the same meaningless claims for more than a decade! Perhaps David will have something relevant to discuss.

Sheesh.

Jim,

You started this thread. If it is about TUM and the DCM, why would you choose to engage Lamson in a debate about JFK's clothing here? It is off topic.

These guys will continue to derail this (or any) thread because THEY CAN. No one will moderate thread integrity here. You must "self moderate" your replies--unless you don't care if your topic is hijacked.

A word to the wise.

[Greg Burnham]

I hope he will. Some reasonable moderation of these threads by a suitable candidate (Don Jeffries comes to mind) would be welcome. But, I'm not holding my breath--

[Pat Speer]

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.

Well, of course the public testimony was a charade. Baden and Sturdivan long ago confirmed that the HSCA's questions were scripted by their staff beforehand. Sturdivan has confirmed as well that many of the questions and some of the answers in the transcripts were in fact the questions the staff and congress were supposed to ask and the answers the witnesses were supposed to provide, and not their actual questions and testimony.

This, moreover, should come as no surprise. You don't suppose for one second they would put Witt on the stand without knowing what he was gonna say, do you?

My broader point is this. While many here and elsewhere love to play the "I don't like what this guy said, so he is probably a xxxx or an impostor" a more reasonable approach is to read the testimony of this witness and see if that testimony--when taken as a whole--is more suggestive of a single-shooter or a conspiracy. We know many facts about the assassination were covered up. If the witness suggests a conspiracy, then it's highly unlikely, IMO, this witness was part of that cover-up.

Buell Frazier, Roy Kellerman, and Louie Witt are three such witnesses, IMO. While many assume they were part of a plot to kill Kennedy or cover-up his murder, one could make a documentary dealing only with their statements that would make a convincing case for conspiracy, IMO.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Pat Speer