Jump to content

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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 :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, Lee!

What have you learned?

--Tommy "The Lazy "Researcher" O'Pepper :ph34r:

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 :ph34r:

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 :ph34r:

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Betzner_Large.jpg

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Pat, all that reveals is that you have not looked into it.

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.

And this reminds me of Tink accepting Wit's story BECAUSE it was so unbelievable it had to be true... Just meaningless and imprecise prattle in lieu of actual research.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat: There is nothing remotely suspicious about his background.

Pat, all that reveals is that you have not looked into it.

Pat: 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.

And this reminds me of Tink accepting Wit's story BECAUSE it was so unbelievable it had to be true... Just meaningless and imprecise prattle in lieu of actual research.

Please identify what is so darned suspicious about Witt's background. I looked at what was posted earlier, and what was in the HSCA's notes, and saw nothing at all unusual.

I am an average American. And yet

1) My father served in the Air Force during the Korean War, and later worked as an executive in an oil company run by a Texan with mob connections, whose best friend was Robert Maheu. My dad believed he'd been kept under Secret Service surveillance in 1967, when LBJ stayed at the Century Plaza Hotel.

2) By the early 1970's my parents were divorced, and my mom's new boyfriend moved in. His best friend was the actor Leo Gordon. Many years later, while conducting research on the JFK assassination, I realized that Leo Gordon was involved in the theft of Howard Hughes' personal papers, which in turn led to the CIA's admission the Glomar Explorer was a CIA front. I believe my mom's boyfriend was also involved in the theft of these papers, and have a vague recollection of him showing me something that he claimed had belonged to Hughes.

3) In 1980 my mom remarried. My Step-father was a WWII vet, who was later employed in the skunk works at Lockheed. He built stealth fighters and had a high-level clearance. Towards the end of his life my sister interviewed him for posterity. On this tape he claimed to have helped rob an armory in the late 50's, and to have helped deliver the arms to Castro personally. He was a very conservative man and he found this very embarrassing.

4) My first girlfriend's dad also worked for Lockheed, and not only had a high-level clearance, but was one of the inventors of stealth technology. I had dinner with this man every Sunday night for 3 years. On many of these occasions his best friend also came to dinner. He was an executive for Lockheed.

5) My best friend's mom worked for the CIA as a secretary during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and STILL feels uncomfortable talking about her experience.

6) My other best friend joined the Marines after high school, and has risen steadily in the ranks to where he is now a Col. in Special Forces responsible for training many of the SF troops in Irag and Afghanistan.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who want access to some of the best studies

of the evidence related to the moon landings, go to

assassinationscience.com and you will find links to

New Work on Moon Photographs

Russians letting the cat out of the bag

Moon Movie

Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon

Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings?

NASA erased moon footage

Metapedia entry on "Moon Hoax"

Wagging the Moondoggie

Personally, I can't imagine how anyone could read

"Wagging the Moondoggie" and not figure this out,

which includes David S. Lifton. Study the evidence!

This was all addressed in this thread, and those links were all found wanting. Jim forgets that and trots out the same list again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

No, he hung one on the Command Module (not Lunar Module, or "lander") simulator. As he himself said, he was frustrated that the various changes that were occuring in the spacecraft were not being replicated in the simulator; it was still set as an "older version" of the CM. He didn't see much point in training in a simulator that did not replicate the configuration or responses of the actual spacecraft.

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"!

No, any geologist (or perhaps more rightly selenologist) would be able to tell the difference. The meteorites collected in the Antarctic showed distinctive evidence of having gone through the atmosphere, whereas the Apollo samples were all pristine and still showed the 'zap pits' caused by cosmic rays. Still, don't take my word for it: listen to someone who is trained in the field:

How Do We Know it is a Rock from the Moon?

Jim, before trying to argue authoritatively on a position, you should check your facts so you actually do know what you are talking about and can then champion them with confidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :ph34r:

I was talking about two different researchers and I never mentioned anything about "highly respected."

Lee,

Points taken. I should have said "a not-very-highly-respected but nevertheless high profile researcher". And that it's an unbelievable ("You're joking, right?") shame that anyone would start a time-consuming new thread that serves as a soapbox for him or her to verbalize a lot of malarkey and encourage others to do the same.,,

--Tommy :ph34r:

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat: There is nothing remotely suspicious about his background.

Pat, all that reveals is that you have not looked into it.

Pat: 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.

And this reminds me of Tink accepting Wit's story BECAUSE it was so unbelievable it had to be true... Just meaningless and imprecise prattle in lieu of actual research.

Please identify what is so darned suspicious about Witt's background. I looked at what was posted earlier, and what was in the HSCA's notes, and saw nothing at all unusual.

I am an average American. And yet

1) My father served in the Air Force during the Korean War, and later worked as an executive in an oil company run by a Texan with mob connections, whose best friend was Robert Maheu. My dad believed he'd been kept under Secret Service surveillance in 1967, when LBJ stayed at the Century Plaza Hotel.

2) By the early 1970's my parents were divorced, and my mom's new boyfriend moved in. His best friend was the actor Leo Gordon. Many years later, while conducting research on the JFK assassination, I realized that Leo Gordon was involved in the theft of Howard Hughes' personal papers, which in turn led to the CIA's admission the Glomar Explorer was a CIA front. I believe my mom's boyfriend was also involved in the theft of these papers, and have a vague recollection of him showing me something that he claimed had belonged to Hughes.

3) In 1980 my mom remarried. My Step-father was a WWII vet, who was later employed in the skunk works at Lockheed. He built stealth fighters and had a high-level clearance. Towards the end of his life my sister interviewed him for posterity. On this tape he claimed to have helped rob an armory in the late 50's, and to have helped deliver the arms to Castro personally. He was a very conservative man and he found this very embarrassing.

4) My first girlfriend's dad also worked for Lockheed, and not only had a high-level clearance, but was one of the inventors of stealth technology. I had dinner with this man every Sunday night for 3 years. On many of these occasions his best friend also came to dinner. He was an executive for Lockheed.

5) My best friend's mom worked for the CIA as a secretary during the Bay of Pigs invasion, and STILL feels uncomfortable talking about her experience.

6) My other best friend joined the Marines after high school, and has risen steadily in the ranks to where he is now a Col. in Special Forces responsible for training many of the SF troops in Irag and Afghanistan.

I don't know how "average" this can possibly be. I don't recall any of these plot lines on Leave it Beaver or My Three Sons.

Was Lee Harvey Oswald also "average"? If so, then there surely was no reason to hide his intelligence connections.... after all, every man and his dog in the US had them...

You looked at what was posted earlier? That was just the surface. I dug deeper. You want me to post the results? Not a chance. If you're interested enough, you can do the digging yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...