Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Not to suggest that evidence you yourself have produced appears to contradict you, but how do you reconcile your take with this testimony?

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]."

Surely, on the contrived scenario you describe, a limo stop/rapid fire witness would be the last testimony they would want to send to Congress.

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 James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Not to suggest that evidence you yourself have produced appears to contradict you, but how do you reconcile your take with this testimony?

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]."

Surely, on the contrived scenario you describe, a limo stop/rapid fire witness would be the last testimony they would want to send to Congress.

There's nothing to reconcile, Jim. Some of his testimony suggests conspiracy, some does not. I don't buy into the theory some evil mastermind wanted us to know there was a conspiracy. As a result, I assume those performing the cover-up would want us to believe everything was on the up and up--that Oswald acted alone. As the rapidity of the shots described by Witt is highly suggestive there was more than one shooter (does anyone have the footage so we can time the speed at which he raps on the table?), I take from this that Witt was not part of a cover-up. I feel the same way about Frazier and Kellerman, both of whom claimed the last two shots were bang bang.

Frazier, in fact, is far and away one of the best witnesses for a conspiracy. He felt 1) the bag he saw in Oswald's possession was too small to hold the rifle, 2) the last two shots were bunched closely together--which is at odds with the single-assassin scenario pushed by most everyone believing such a thing, and 3) at least one of the bangs came from west of the depository, and not directly over his head. This last point is especially intriguing given that the HSCA's psyco-acoustics expert said it was easy to identify shots fired from overhead while standing in front of the depository building.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I am worrying about you all over again. This is quite ridiculous. HE IS A CAR STOP WITNESS. HIS TESTIMONY IMPEACHES THE HOLY GRAIL, THE ZAPRUDER FILM!

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.

Surely you cannot be as mentally opaque as you are coming across here. How closely are you following the issues involved here? He said this and it was completely ignored.

Jim

Not to suggest that evidence you yourself have produced appears to contradict you, but how do you reconcile your take with this testimony?

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]."

Surely, on the contrived scenario you describe, a limo stop/rapid fire witness would be the last testimony they would want to send to Congress.

There's nothing to reconcile, Jim. Some of his testimony suggests conspiracy, some does not. I don't buy into the theory some evil mastermind wanted us to know there was a conspiracy. As a result, I assume those performing the cover-up would want us to believe everything was on the up and up--that Oswald acted alone. As the rapidity of the shots described by Witt is highly suggestive there was more than one shooter (does anyone have the footage so we can time the speed at which he raps on the table?), I take from this that Witt was not part of a cover-up. I feel the same way about Frazier and Kellerman, both of whom claimed the last two shots were bang bang.

Frazier, in fact, is far and away one of the best witnesses for a conspiracy. He felt 1) the bag he saw in Oswald's possession was too small to hold the rifle, 2) the last two shots were bunched closely together--which is at odds with the single-assassin scenario pushed by most everyone believing such a thing, and 3) at least one of the bangs came from west of the depository, and not directly over his head. This last point is especially intriguing given that the HSCA's psyco-acoustics expert said it was easy to identify shots fired from overhead while standing in front of the depository building.

Edited December 3, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

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. Twenty-nine pages of vested-interest, egoistical, "Dog In The Manger" invective tantrums so far. Question: Has anyone learned anything new?

--Tommy

Edited December 3, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Greg Burnham]

Frazier needs to give an explanation as to why his sister lied about which hospital he was at once he left TSBD. What possible motive did Linnie MAE Randle have in sending authorities on a wild goose chase, especially when by all accounts it was she who inserted herself into the events quite early on.

Much like the question of where and how Witt learned about the "effective" umbrella protests in Arizona, the devil is in the details.

It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

[Thomas Graves]

Has anyone learned anything new?

Yes

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper

P.S. Don't mind me. I'm just envious.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Frazier needs to give an explanation as to why his sister lied about which hospital he was at once he left TSBD. What possible motive did Linnie MAE Randle have in sending authorities on a wild goose chase, especially when by all accounts it was she who inserted herself into the events quite early on.

Much like the question of where and how Witt learned about the "effective" umbrella protests in Arizona, the devil is in the details.

It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

Maybe he was looking for his petroleum jelly? (you know, to lubricate his umbrella with?).

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Has anyone learned anything new?

Yes

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper

That a certain high profile researcher, who it is claimed is searching for the truth, thinks it a better use of our time to look into yellow paint than it is trying to corroborate the story of the man who says he was pumping an umbrella up and down right next to the President when he was shot and who then disappeared for 15 years.

And much, much more...

Nicely put!

Hey, I'd make a great "straight man," wouldn't I! (Drop me a line whenever you want me to "set you up" for your brilliant, succinct, elegant, and utterly destroying critique of another "Heavyweight Researcher"!

--Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper

That a certain high profile researcher, who it is claimed is searching for the truth, thinks it a better use of our time to look into yellow paint than it is trying to corroborate the story of the man who says he was pumping an umbrella up and down right next to the President when he was shot and who then disappeared for 15 years.

And much, much more...

Nicely put!

Hey, I'd make a great "straight man," wouldn't I! (Drop me a line whenever you want me to "set you up" for your brilliant, succinct, elegant, and utterly destroying critique of another "Heavyweight Researcher"!

--Tommy

I think this whole thread has been a "set up"...

And the man that set it up has now started a new one to talk about the same issue.

You gotta be kidding me! You're joking, right?

--Tommy

Edited December 3, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

Monk,

I introduced the clothing evidence into the thread as a critique of Tink Thompson's dismissal of "any fact which you think is really sinister", inappropriate(imo) given Tink's intellectually indefensible conclusions in SSID regarding two most "sinister facts" -- the T3 back wound and the throat entrance wound.

I knew Lamson would jump in. I planned to completely ignore Lamson until I noticed that Jim was perhaps haboring the notion that the following photo was altered to add a massive bulge, a half-foot of bunched up shirt and jacket fabric just above the base of JFK's neck.

I mean...really, Jim? Why would you cede ground on such an obviously absurd claim?

Edited December 3, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Thomas Graves]

You gotta be kidding me! You're joking, right?

About what, Tommy?

What you done told me about in you last post, you know, something about some highly-respected "Researcher" starting a brand new time-and-energy-wasting thread on this here Forum? You were kidding, right?

--Tommy

[Pat Speer]

Frazier needs to give an explanation as to why his sister lied about which hospital he was at once he left TSBD. What possible motive did Linnie MAE Randle have in sending authorities on a wild goose chase, especially when by all accounts it was she who inserted herself into the events quite early on.

Much like the question of where and how Witt learned about the "effective" umbrella protests in Arizona, the devil is in the details.

It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

Your question was answered in Witt's testimony. He wasn't sure he saw anything of interest, was embarrassed by his behavior, and hoped he'd never be identified.

You seem to be holding onto the idea he is not UM. It follows that he was somehow recruited to say he was. Is it a coincidnce he looks just like him? Was it just a bureaucratic oversight that he testified in a manner more suggesting of a conspiracy, than not?

Edited December 4, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Greg Parker]

Frazier needs to give an explanation as to why his sister lied about which hospital he was at once he left TSBD. What possible motive did Linnie MAE Randle have in sending authorities on a wild goose chase, especially when by all accounts it was she who inserted herself into the events quite early on.

Much like the question of where and how Witt learned about the "effective" umbrella protests in Arizona, the devil is in the details.

It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

Your question was answered in Witt's testimony. He wasn't sure he saw anything of interest, was embarrassed by his behavior, and hoped he'd never be identified.

You seem to be holding onto the idea he is not UM. It follows that he was somehow recruited to say he was. Is it a coincidnce he looks just like him? Was it just a bureaucratic oversight that he testified in a manner more suggesting of a conspiracy, than not?

Pat,

As I have already said, and as Lee far more succinctly and eloquently put it, "It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO" The only thing I'd add is that solved should have " " around it.

Read the executive session transcripts. The HSCA did not want to find anything "sinister" about the umbrella man. It simply wanted to give the appearance of having addressed the concerns of the critics.

Then do a little digging on his work history as I have. The odds that he was recruited for the role start to shorten dramatically.

Edited December 4, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I am worrying about you all over again. This is quite ridiculous. HE IS A CAR STOP WITNESS. HIS TESTIMONY IMPEACHES THE HOLY GRAIL, THE ZAPRUDER FILM!

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.

Surely you cannot be as mentally opaque as you are coming across here. How closely are you following the issues involved here? He said this and it was completely ignored.

Jim

Not to suggest that evidence you yourself have produced appears to contradict you, but how do you reconcile your take with this testimony?

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]."

Surely, on the contrived scenario you describe, a limo stop/rapid fire witness would be the last testimony they would want to send to Congress.

There's nothing to reconcile, Jim. Some of his testimony suggests conspiracy, some does not. I don't buy into the theory some evil mastermind wanted us to know there was a conspiracy. As a result, I assume those performing the cover-up would want us to believe everything was on the up and up--that Oswald acted alone. As the rapidity of the shots described by Witt is highly suggestive there was more than one shooter (does anyone have the footage so we can time the speed at which he raps on the table?), I take from this that Witt was not part of a cover-up. I feel the same way about Frazier and Kellerman, both of whom claimed the last two shots were bang bang.

Frazier, in fact, is far and away one of the best witnesses for a conspiracy. He felt 1) the bag he saw in Oswald's possession was too small to hold the rifle, 2) the last two shots were bunched closely together--which is at odds with the single-assassin scenario pushed by most everyone believing such a thing, and 3) at least one of the bangs came from west of the depository, and not directly over his head. This last point is especially intriguing given that the HSCA's psyco-acoustics expert said it was easy to identify shots fired from overhead while standing in front of the depository building.

I don't know what you're barking about. I believe Witt was umbrella man, and honestly reported what he saw.

[Pat Speer]

Frazier needs to give an explanation as to why his sister lied about which hospital he was at once he left TSBD. What possible motive did Linnie MAE Randle have in sending authorities on a wild goose chase, especially when by all accounts it was she who inserted herself into the events quite early on.

Much like the question of where and how Witt learned about the "effective" umbrella protests in Arizona, the devil is in the details.

It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO

I agree 100%. Witt has nothing to do with being a witness. Why did the man not come forward in 1963 or 64? He was merely the means by which TUM could be dismissed.

Your question was answered in Witt's testimony. He wasn't sure he saw anything of interest, was embarrassed by his behavior, and hoped he'd never be identified.

You seem to be holding onto the idea he is not UM. It follows that he was somehow recruited to say he was. Is it a coincidnce he looks just like him? Was it just a bureaucratic oversight that he testified in a manner more suggesting of a conspiracy, than not?

Pat,

As I have already said, and as Lee far more succinctly and eloquently put it, "It matters not to me that he mentioned the limousine stopping. No one gave a damn. The key was getting Umbrella man solved. IMO" The only thing I'd add is that solved should have " " around it.

Read the executive session transcripts. The HSCA did not want to find anything "sinister" about the umbrella man. It simply wanted to give the appearance of having addressed the concerns of the critics.

Then do a little digging on his work history as I have. The odds that he was recruited for the role start to shorten dramatically.

There is nothing remotely suspicious about his background. This reminds me of Thane Cesar's having worked for Lockheed. The number of people in this country with high-level clearances or military backgrounds is astronomical.