Jump to content

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some questions that have collected in my brain pan, and need emptying. B)

Would a "military-style ambush" employ a spotter on the curb pumping his umbrella up and down? Who is watching the umbrella? Would the shooters watch the umbrella at the same time as they sight the target, or would there be a spotter with the shooter watching the umbrella?

Having never conducted a military style ambush I can't rule out the above based on experience, but I'm having a difficult time imagining such an ambush employing someone like the Umbrella Man.

Why wouldn't a military-style ambush just use spotters with high grade binoculars?

And while I'm on the subject of difficult-for-me-to-imagine scenarios, what about the one where, in the course of a military style ambush, the very first shot at JFK was a non-fatal round that was designed to go through the windshield?

Seriously, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, Mr. Weldon? They planned the first shot to go through the windshield, thereby running the risk of alerting everyone in the limo that there was an attack from the front, which was then followed up with another non-fatal shot in the back?

Really?

And lastly...

Mr. Lifton, if the assassins planned all along to alter the wounds to Kennedy to indict a lone nut assassin why did they set up a very un-lone-nut-like Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy? Of course, I'm not disputing the body alteration scenario -- it is, after all, suggested in the historical record -- but it seems to me that body alteration was merely a contingency in case the Oswald-as-Castro-agent scenario fell apart, which it did.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest James H. Fetzer

John,

This is all explained so patiently in Doug Horne's INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV (2009), that I am taken aback that you don't know this.

See "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", Veterans Today, where I offer a condensed version of his findings.

Jim

David. I've been considering for some time any means whereby an alteration could have happened (as well as extent) and there don't seem to be that many opportunities to consider. I've been considering various apparently unrelated events, that imo if could be connected may provide such an answer, namely an in depth look at Bell, particularly the brief glimpse of a couple walking away from the scene, Harry Holmes, and his apparent handling of the SS copies pre one being sent to Washington, and various other film involvements. Even such obscurities as looking at Simms and Co through the MSC files.

Can you recount any hypotheses that you or others have developed?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Cliff,

There were shooters at six locations: top of the County Records Building, the sewer opening half-way between the road way and the top of the Triple Underpass (south side), the Dal-Tex Building, the west side of the TSBD, the grassy knoll, and the sewer opening half-way between the road way and the top of the Triple Underpass (north side). The knew the shots they were going to take, but they did not know if they had been successful. My take is that he pumps the umbrella if the target is not yet dead, which means, therefore, that they should keep shooting. He was a "spotter" in that sense. The open umbrella could be seen from all of those locations. Something less conspicuous would not have been. I have discussed the shot sequence in many places, including "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?"

Jim

Some questions that have collected in my brain pan, and need emptying. B)

Would a "military-style ambush" employ a spotter on the curb pumping his umbrella up and down? Who is watching the umbrella? Would the shooters watch the umbrella at the same time as they sight the target, or would there be a spotter with the shooter watching the umbrella?

Having never conducted a military style ambush I can't rule out the above based on experience, but I'm having a difficult time imagining such an ambush employing someone like the Umbrella Man.

Why wouldn't a military-style ambush just use spotters with high grade binoculars?

And while I'm on the subject of difficult-for-me-to-imagine scenarios, what about the one where, in the course of a military style ambush, the very first shot at JFK was a non-fatal round that was designed to go through the windshield?

Seriously, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, Mr. Weldon? They planned the first shot to go through the windshield, thereby running the risk of alerting everyone in the limo that there was an attack from the front, which was then followed up with another non-fatal shot in the back?

Really?

And lastly...

Mr. Lifton, if the assassins planned all along to alter the wounds to Kennedy to indict a lone nut assassin why did they set up a very un-lone-nut-like Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy? Of course, I'm not disputing the body alteration scenario -- it is, after all, suggested in the historical record -- but it seems to me that body alteration was merely a contingency in case the Oswald-as-Castro-agent scenario fell apart, which it did.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Jim,

This distresses me. I have published article after article about the faking of the film, how it was done, when it was done, and why it was done.

You appear to be familiar with none of it. Do you have any idea how irresponsible you appear to those of us who have spent so much time and

effort on its study? Please do me the favor of reading "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" and "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". Then explain what I and Doug Horne have argued there and why what we have so patiently elaborated is wrong.

Otherwise, you are coming across as ignorant when there is no excuse. Your sarcasm about the film being "a cartoon" and having been redone

at Disney Studios is completely inappropriate. We know where it was done, how it was done, and why it was done. You have missed the boat.

Jim

David Lifton is correct about Sylvia mentioning witnesses who said they thought the car stopped in Dealey Plaza.

She then says, on page 3, that films and photos do not bear this out.

But David, please, let us be honest about where you got this idea about the film being a cartoon.

I am aware of it, as many others are. You did your little bit of deception to get a look at the Z film--if I recall, by saying you were thinking of buying it.

When you did see it you looked at it and it did not bear out your view of the medical evidence. At least to you.

And is this not what started you down the path to the film being redone at, say, DIsney Studios?

Then, either Newcomb had the idea, or you both had it at the same time. He ran with it in his self published book, and in a magazine article.

That, I think, is the early chronology of the Z film falsification concept.

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JIm:

I was not even talking about you. Or about Z film alteration. Its an issue I stay away from--on purpose.

I was talking about the time line for LIfton's origination of his belief about the film being altered.

That was it. Period.

I see. . . you are not concerned with the alteration, but you ARE concerned with "the time line for Lifton's origination of his belief". . .

Hmmm. . . ..

You teach American history, and you boastfully say, re the Zapruder film alteration situation, that "Its an issue I stay away from --on purpose."

". . . on purpose. . ."?

That sounds like Seymour Hersh, who brags that there's two issues he has vowed not to deal with: The Kennedy assassination and UFO's. Now I'll bet you might agree with me that Hersh, for whatever reason, is "in denial."

But how does your behavior differ all that much from that of Hersh?

You cannot deal with the President's murder, without dealing with the autopsy; and you cannot deal with the wider implications of the event, itself, without dealing with the Zapruder film, and the evidence that there has been serious alteration.

In the case of the autopsy (if you ignore the evidence of wound alteration), then you are willfully ignoring the clear changes in the size and character of wounds in the six hour period after the murder, i.e., between Dallas and Bethesda, not to mention the report of the two FBI agents present at the Bethesda autopsy, who explicitly stated that it was "apparent" there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Of course, that's just for starters; because there's much more than that which you then have to ignore "on purpose." There's also the matter of Robert Kennedy--of "what he knew, and when he knew it."

For example, you are then also willfully ignoring the fact that in 1966--specifically, within weeks of my discovery of this situation, and showing it to former WC attorney (and then UCLA professor) Wesley Liebeler--he then drafted a 13 page memorandum, that went to the Chief Justice of the United States, all members of the Commission, and Robert Kennedy, informing the recipients that evidence had been discovered indicating that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy, the autopsy on which their entire "case against Oswald" was based.

If you're going to call yourself a "Kennedy assassination researcher" and run a website which associates your name with the word "truth," and sign your newsletters "the Chairman," as if you're the Frank Sinatra of the world of evidence, you ought to be paying attention to such facts--and not decide to ignore key areas of evidence "on purpose."

In the case of the film, you are willfully ignoring a plethora of data indicating the Zapruder film was altered. Putting aside all the technical data, there ought to be some curiosity on your part as to why the price associated with the Zapruder film zoomed from $25K or $40K on Saturday, 11/23/63, to $150K on Monday, 11/25-or is such a 300 to 400% price increase something that you also ignore "on purpose"? (And if your answer, perhaps, is that the price was increased so as to include "film rights", then my response to that is another question: if so, then how come no effort was made to exploit those "movie rights," and to recoup that investment? Since when do private corporations spend nearly a million dollars (in today's money) to buy something that is primary evidence, and then behave so as to hide it from the American people?

Is that something you've also decided to ignore "on purpose"?

Of course, that's just the tip of an iceberg, just the beginning of what has to be ignored "on purpose" with regards to the Zapruder film. There's also the dozens of witnesses saw the President's markedly slow down--if not come to a complete halt--during the shooting.

Don't these things bother you? At all?

Or is that also something to be ignored "on purpose"?

How about the fact that while the film sent to Chicago on 11/23 was presumably 8mm (and presumably the 8mm camera original), the Chicago people report that it was viewed on a movieola machine, which normally requires 16 or 35 mm.?

Or: what about the unslit 16mm Kodachrome film (again, supposedly the original) that arrived in Rochester on the night of 11/23--at the highly secret "Hawkeyeworks" plant--(when the original 16mm was supposedly slit in Dallas?, and thus was supposedly in 8mm format?)

Since when does a teacher--specifically, an American history teacher--brag about the fact that he ignores critical evidence "on purpose"? Suppose one of the students in your class, who has read about these matters on the Internet, proposes to write a paper on such issues? Do you instruct him or her that that area is proscribed? That you, as the teacher, have decided it is to be ignored "on purpose"?

Let's put the shoe on your other foot. . that of your role as Garrison guru and promoter. . :

Do you ignore certain evidence in the Garrison area, "on purpose"??

How about the evidence that Edgar Eugene Bradley was not involved in any way, shape, or for, with any aspect of the assassination of President Kennedy---yet was charged by D.A. Garrison with being part of a plot to murder the President? Do you ignore that (too) "on purpose"?

Or what about the fact that Kerry Thornley, who I knew quite well (and who had nothing whatsoever to do with this affair--and didn't even know Oswald was in town, during the brief period their stays overlapped in New Orleans in the summer of 1963). . .do you also ignore that "on purpose"?

What else do you ignore "on purpose"?

In a recent appearance on Black Ops radio, Pat Valentino--who has been a good friend for 30 years, and accompanied me on many of the key filmed interviews--played audio recordings of numerous key witnesses that provide crucial support to my work, and clearly establish that the President's body was intercepted (and altered) prior to autopsy. That the body arrived at Bethesda, as the documentary record clearly shows, some 20 minutes before the coffin, accompanied by Jacqueline Kennedy. Ergo, the ceremonial coffin (i.e., the "Dallas coffin") offloaded from Air Force One must have been empty.

You never responded. Not a word.

Apparently, you are ignoring all that evidence, too. . is that, also, "on purpose"??

I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should use the EXCEL program, and make a spreadsheet.

Column 1: Things I believe. . "no matter what" (i.e., regardless of the contrary evidence)

Column 2: Thinks I ignore. . ("because, well, I just don't know.")

Column 3: things I ignore "on purpose."

I'd sure like to know how anyone can approach a crime in which the only official to bring a prosecution was so sloppy that he charged innocent people with murder, and glorify that prosecutor--and then, at the same time, willfully ignore key areas of the case: the autopsy, where the alteration of the body is ignored; and the film of the event, where you proudly assert that you ignore that area "on purpose."

DSL

12/8/11; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JIm:

I was not even talking about you. Or about Z film alteration. Its an issue I stay away from--on purpose.

I was talking about the time line for LIfton's origination of his belief about the film being altered.

That was it. Period.

I see. . . you are not concerned with the alteration, but you ARE concerned with "the time line for Lifton's origination of his belief". . .

Hmmm. . . ..

You teach American history, and you boastfully say, re the Zapruder film alteration situation, that "Its an issue I stay away from --on purpose."

". . . on purpose. . ."?

That sounds like Seymour Hersh, who brags that there's two issues he has vowed not to deal with: The Kennedy assassination and UFO's. Now I'll bet you might agree with me that Hersh, for whatever reason, is "in denial."

But how does your behavior differ all that much from that of Hersh?

You cannot deal with the President's murder, without dealing with the autopsy; and you cannot deal with the wider implications of the event, itself, without dealing with the Zapruder film, and the evidence that there has been serious alteration.

In the case of the autopsy (if you ignore the evidence of wound alteration), then you are willfully ignoring the clear changes in the size and character of wounds in the six hour period after the murder, i.e., between Dallas and Bethesda, not to mention the report of the two FBI agents present at the Bethesda autopsy, who explicitly stated that it was "apparent" there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."

Of course, that's just for starters; because there's much more than that which you then have to ignore "on purpose." There's also the matter of Robert Kennedy--of "what he knew, and when he knew it."

For example, you are then also willfully ignoring the fact that in 1966--specifically, within weeks of my discovery of this situation, and showing it to former WC attorney (and then UCLA professor) Wesley Liebeler--he then drafted a 13 page memorandum, that went to the Chief Justice of the United States, all members of the Commission, and Robert Kennedy, informing the recipients that evidence had been discovered indicating that the President's body had been altered prior to autopsy, the autopsy on which their entire "case against Oswald" was based.

If you're going to call yourself a "Kennedy assassination researcher" and run a website which associates your name with the word "truth," and sign your newsletters "the Chairman," as if you're the Frank Sinatra of the world of evidence, you ought to be paying attention to such facts--and not decide to ignore key areas of evidence "on purpose."

In the case of the film, you are willfully ignoring a plethora of data indicating the Zapruder film was altered. Putting aside all the technical data, there ought to be some curiosity on your part as to why the price associated with the Zapruder film zoomed from $25K or $40K on Saturday, 11/23/63, to $150K on Monday, 11/25-or is such a 300 to 400% price increase something that you also ignore "on purpose"? (And if your answer, perhaps, is that the price was increased so as to "film rights", then my response to that is another question: if so, then how come no effort was made to exploit those "movie rights," and to recoup that investment? Since when do private corporations spend nearly a million dollars (in today's money) to buy something that is primary evidence, and then behave so as to hide it from the American people?

Is that something you've also decided to ignore "on purpose"?

Of course, that's just the tip of an iceberg, just the beginning of what has to be ignored "on purpose" with regards to the Zapruder film. There's also the dozens of witnesses saw the President's markedly slow down--if not come to a complete halt--during the shooting.

Don't these things bother you? At all?

Or is that also something to be ignored "on purpose"?

How about the fact that while the film sent to Chicago on 11/23 was presumably 8mm (and presumably the 8mm camera original), the Chicago people report that it was viewed on a movieola machine, which normally requires 16 or 35 mm.?

Or: what about the unslit film that arrived in Rochester on the night of 11/23 (when the original was supposedly slit in Dallas?)

Since when does a teacher--specifically, an American history teacher--brag about the fact that he ignores critical evidence "on purpose"? Suppose one of the students in your class, who has read about these matters on the Internet, proposes to write a paper on such issues? Do you instruct him or her that that area is proscribed? That you, as the teacher, have decided it is to be ignored "on purpose"?

Let's put the shoe on your other foot. . that of your role as Garrison guru and promoter. . :

Do you ignore certain evidence in the Garrison area, "on purpose"??

How about the evidence that Edgar Eugene Bradley was not involved in any way, shape, or for, with any aspect of the assassination of President Kennedy---yet was charged by D.A. Garrison with being part of a plot to murder the President? Do you ignore that (too) "on purpose"?

Or what about the fact that Kerry Thornley, who I knew quite well (and who had nothing whatsoever to do with this affair--and didn't even know Oswald was in town, during the brief period their stays overlapped in New Orleans in the summer of 1963). . .do you also ignore that "on purpose"?

What else do you ignore "on purpose"?

In a recent appearance on Black Ops radio, Pat Valentino--who has been a good friend for 30 years, and accompanied me on many of the key filmed interviews--played audio recordings of numerous key witnesses that provide crucial support to my work, and clearly establish that the President's body was intercepted (and altered) prior to autopsy. That the body arrived at Bethesda, as the documentary record clearly shows, some 20 minutes before the coffin, accompanied by Jacqueline Kennedy.

You never responded. Not a word.

Apparently, you are ignoring all that evidence, too. . is that, also, "on purpose"??

I have a suggestion. Perhaps you should use the EXCEL program, and make a spreadsheet.

Column 1: Things I believe. . "no matter what" (i.e., regardless of the contrary evidence)

Column 2: Thinks I ignore. . ("because, well, I just don't know.")

Column 3: things I ignore "on purpose."

I'd sure like to know how anyone can approach a crime in which the only official to bring a prosecution was so sloppy that he charged innocent people with murder, and glorify that prosecutor--and then, at the same time, willfully ignore key areas of the case: the autopsy, where the alteration of the body is ignored; and the film of the event, where you proudly assert that you ignore that area "on purpose."

DSL

12/8/11; 7:20 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

Not to state the obvious, David, but I think EVERY researcher ignores certain aspects of the case "on purpose." For some, certain aspects are irrelevant. For others, certain aspects are so contentious that stepping into that room means never getting out. Jim, as most of us, is a student of the case. His knowledge is ever-widening. If he is skeptical that pulling on your favorite tree will bear fruit, and has chosen to move on to another tree, that is his prerogative, IMO.

There is a dark side to this prerogative, of course, and it's that members of the media have this same prerogative, and use it with regularity. Unfortunately, this allows a small minority to stop any forward movement in the case, by making every point a point of contention. I mean, you could find a note from DeMohrenschildt in which he admitted setting up Oswald, and even have his writing verified by a handwriting expert, and have no one report the story, because they first called Edward so and so and Gary so and so and they told them DeMohrenschildt was obviously insane, etc.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry about it, James, you'll get over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give Lifton an inch and he takes a mile.

I have often stated why I stay away from the issue.

If I have that consuming my time, I could not ever do the things I do accomplish.

Much too time consuming. And as Pat says, too contentious.

Unfortunately, trying to communicate with anyone who refuses to debate issues in a constructive manner and instead makes demands is a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give Lifton an inch and he takes a mile.

I have often stated why I stay away from the issue.

If I have that consuming my time, I could not ever do the things I do accomplish.

Much too time consuming. And as Pat says, too contentious.

Unfortunately, trying to communicate with anyone who refuses to debate issues in a constructive manner and instead makes demands is a waste of time.

I'm hoping to keep this crucially important thread on "page one" forever! So, here's my two cents for today-- TINKER Tailor Soldier Sailor!

--Tommy :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some questions that have collected in my brain pan, and need emptying. B)

Would a "military-style ambush" employ a spotter on the curb pumping his umbrella up and down? Who is watching the umbrella? Would the shooters watch the umbrella at the same time as they sight the target, or would there be a spotter with the shooter watching the umbrella?

Having never conducted a military style ambush I can't rule out the above based on experience, but I'm having a difficult time imagining such an ambush employing someone like the Umbrella Man.

Why wouldn't a military-style ambush just use spotters with high grade binoculars?

And while I'm on the subject of difficult-for-me-to-imagine scenarios, what about the one where, in the course of a military style ambush, the very first shot at JFK was a non-fatal round that was designed to go through the windshield?

Seriously, Dr. Fetzer, Dr. Mantik, Mr. Weldon? They planned the first shot to go through the windshield, thereby running the risk of alerting everyone in the limo that there was an attack from the front, which was then followed up with another non-fatal shot in the back?

Really?

And lastly...

Mr. Lifton, if the assassins planned all along to alter the wounds to Kennedy to indict a lone nut assassin why did they set up a very un-lone-nut-like Lee Harvey Oswald as the patsy? Of course, I'm not disputing the body alteration scenario -- it is, after all, suggested in the historical record -- but it seems to me that body alteration was merely a contingency in case the Oswald-as-Castro-agent scenario fell apart, which it did.

Regarding the questions you posed:

(a) I agree that a professional sniper operation would likely employ a spotter paired with each shooter (and using binoculars). Moreover, the focus of the spotter would be on the target—(and/or on some person in authority making decision, and controlling the number of shots necessary, etc.) and certainly not on some fellow with an umbrella.

(b ) I do not believe there was any “warning shot” designed to go through the windshield. I do believe that there was likely an audio diversion, to create the appearance of shots from behind, but I agree with your point: a deliberate shot through the windshield would alert everyone that there was an attack from the front.

(c ) I believe that the original plan called for Oswald—with politically suggestive ties to Castro (to be exploited to embarrass the left)—to be set up as the “lone assassin.” And then to be dead very shortly afterwards, so he would never be able to reveal the secret(s) of who he was, how he was manipulated, etc.

I do not believe that this crime was ever planned to “look like” a multiple shooter conspiracy; rather, it was always planned to look like a “single-shooter” event.

Consequently, I do not believe that body-alteration was “merely a contingency plan.” To the contrary, medical alteration and autopsy falsification was a major covert operation that lay at the heart of a strategy of deception that worked in tandem with the actual assassination. (And I disagree with anyone who thinks that the autopsy falsification was part of an ad hoc after-the-fact cover-up).

Also please note: the reason that Oswald “looks like” a “lone assassin” (i.e., appears that way in the Warren Report, but not if one goes several layers deeper, into the documents etc) is largely the result of the de-politicization of the Kennedy assassination by the Warren Commission (and in the media coverage, too). As you well know, the dynamics of the Warren Commission investigation functioned as to minimize (and marginalize) Oswald’s connections to the Soviet Union, to Castro, the significance of the trip to Mexico City, etc.

As spelled out in Best Evidence, I do not believe that Oswald was a shooter in the JFK assassination, and the only reason he appears to be that is because of falsification of the key evidence—a falsification which was integral to the design of the crime. In other words, I believe this was a plot with a “built in cover-up”—that is, a false solution was planned (and manufactured) as part of the crime.

As to contingency plans: Of course, none of us have a copy of the conspirators “playbook,” and I suppose it could be argued that if plans went so completely awry that the Secret Service actually lost control of the body (and the subsequent autopsy), and it was impossible to deny the existence of other shooters (either because of the recovery of bullets from “other guns” or because of matters of geometry, i.e., incontrovertible evidence of shots from the front), then sure, there might have been a “plan B” in which it was alleged that this was a “multiple shooter” conspiracy. However, I don’t think that was ever planned as a reasonable “contingency” because it would have created a political uproar, and created all kinds of nearly insoluble problems for Johnson to address, and still “ascend” to the presidency in a legitimate manner, i.e., without a huge cloud of suspicion hanging over his head. Leaving the Kennedy assassination as an "unsolved crime" --because there were "other shooters" who somehow "escaped"-- was not (IMHO) a viable "solution" (politically speaking).

DSL

12/11/11 ; 4:55 AM

Los Angeles, CA

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of the name of Steve Witt's dentist?

I'm getting the impression you are now ignoring this request on purpose - you've been asked six or seven times now.

Why are you struggling with such a simple request, Mr. Lifton?

If David Lifton tells us the name of Witt's dentist--and it can be verified--I might even consider telling him what I think about the moon landings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of the name of Steve Witt's dentist?

I'm getting the impression you are now ignoring this request on purpose - you've been asked six or seven times now.

Why are you struggling with such a simple request, Mr. Lifton?

If David Lifton tells us the name of Witt's dentist--and it can be verified--I might even consider telling him what I think about the moon landings!

I wonder why it's such a struggle for him to tell us?

I think we should seriously consider kicking him off the forum if he continues to refuse to divulge the name of the darn dentist. He's got a lot of darn gall!

JUST KIDDING

My ulterior motive for this here "reply" was to bump this here thread. Seriously!

--Tommy :)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance of the name of Steve Witt's dentist?

I'm getting the impression you are now ignoring this request on purpose - you've been asked six or seven times now.

Why are you struggling with such a simple request, Mr. Lifton?

If David Lifton tells us the name of Witt's dentist--and it can be verified--I might even consider telling him what I think about the moon landings!

But you've already told us what you think of the moon landings. You're not sure. You haven't studied it enough yet, etc. Someone said you are a motorcycle officer. Suppose you stop someone for speeding, and the ticket is contested, and you find yourself in court, and your opponent raises this issue, and the judge asks you. . . Well, officer. . do you think we went to the moon, or not? Don't you think it will cause some raised eyebrows if you tell the court that you aren't sure? That you haven't "studied the matter enough" etc.?

As for the dentist's identity, these conversations happened 35 years ago--just before (or at the time of) the HSCA hearings. The source was a friend (from Dallas) who had the same dentist--i.e., Witt's dentist. I haven't seen her in over thirty years. Do you think I should have kept some sort of "forensic diary" at the time? So I would be able to produce the name of the dentist three decades hence, as "corroboration" for someone like yourself; when the man himself (i.e., Witt) was visited at his home by a congressional investigator (Moriarty), and then appeared as a sworn witness in a nationally televised congressional investigation. (Are you kidding??)

I think I've made my own position pretty clear on Witt. (And I've also told you that both Earl Golz and Penn Jones (who actually confronted Witt, I'm told, where he worked) seemed satisfied that it was him.

Steve Witt and his umbrella represents a conspiracy hypothesis that's hard (for some) to give up. They're enamored of it. Like an old romance, it will never go away. I never had that problem, because the things I have believed in, over the years, concern the falsification of the autopsy, and matters pertaining to the true identity of Oswald.

I truly think the issue here is what's relevant, and what is not.

I think Mr. Farley ought to go back to his hypothesizing that Mary Bledsoe wasn't on the bus, when Oswald boarded--which seems to be the focus of his concept of "conspiracy"--and you, Mr. Burnham, ought to take the time to decide whether or not we went to the moon.

DSL

Edited by David Lifton
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...