Jump to content

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 seemed, who actually confronted Witt, I'm told, where he worked, were 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

Great post!

:clapping

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Post 515 translated means Lifton doesn't have the name today.

Right on, Jimbo! David either can't remember the name of the darn dentist after 35 years or can't find the piece of paper on which he may have written it (this now-crucial-to-some-people factoid of future forensic evidence) and/or doesn't want to bother the person he knew thirty-something years ago who had the same dentist as Witt in 1963. That is if that person is still alive. And can remember it. Or find their piece of paper.

--Tommy :ph34r:

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, David Lifton:

If a cop ticketed a motorist for speeding, his belief regarding moon landings would not be questioned as it is wholly OFF TOPIC in a courtroom concerning a traffic offense just as it is off topic in this thread. I was obviously being facetious, but you must have known that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post 515 translated means Lifton doesn't have the name today.

Jim, I don't think it matters now whether or not he can name the dentist (in any case, his informant's name would have sufficed). It only mattered if Witt told his dentist PRIOR to his finding out that the HSCA was looking for him.

If he told his dentist after he found out he was wanted by the committee (as now seems to be the story) then I have two words for that "BIG" & "DEAL". If it is now a case of the dentist knowing post discovery of Witt then such a witness (assuming he even exists outside the fevered imagination of the man who brought us shooters from fake trees) is worse than useless.

But I suspect the time-frame for the dentist "knowing" was brought forward simply because I found Witt being quoted as saying he had no idea his actions had caused any controversy -- had not followed the assassination and did not know his identity was sought. Only one way to get around that is to have Witt telling his dentist around the time of the HSCA...

In short, the story is either bogus -- or alternatively, it means Jack S__t.

The question to be answered now is why people like Josiah Thomson and (even worse) Jefferson Morley bought into this useless and evidence free (alleged) hearsay.

Neither of them should need an excuse to NOT buy into any TUM theory, so I am at a loss to understand such grasping at any old straw from two who would have apoplexy as such easy acceptance of other (ultimately useless) "evidence".

Forget about Lifton. I now want some answers from his buyers of this crapola.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let us not forget Arizona.

Jimbo,

Heck no, I ain't gonna forget 'bout Arizonie. They sez there's still a lot o' gold to-be-found 'round the Rich Hill/Antelope Crick area. Corse them Keating Fives probably done highgraded it by now...

--Tommy :)

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Jack White thinks we never landed on the moon. He is wrong about that.

Jack White thinks that a high level domestic conspiracy, with LBJ part of it, murdered JFK. He is right about that.

In fact, I would think that Jack White's view of the JFK assassination would be quite close to David Lifton's. Not exact, but pretty close.

Just because someone believes something fruity, fringe and woefully wrong on one topic, does not mean they can not be right as rain on another topic.

Another example would be the loud mouthed, buffoon TV commentator Chris Matthews who advances the laughable, fruity fringe "lone nutter" view of the JFK assassination. The Establishment sucks on that one like a kid on a blinky. Just because this egotistical, willfully self-ignorant moron is wrong about the 1963 Coup d'Etat, does not mean that he is also wrong about 9/11 not being an inside job.

9/11 clearly was not an "inside job."

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack White thinks we never landed on the moon. He is wrong about that. [snip]

I don't know if Jack is right or wrong about that and neither do you, Robert. How much research have you conducted on that subject? The same amount as has David Lifton, which is ZERO? Neither of you have a clue as to the facts and evidence surrounding the subject because you haven't studied it at all. If David has conducted actual research on the subject he is keeping it a SECRET. So, I assume he hasn't done squat. You and he simply buy the official account because the alternative is too much for you to imagine. You are behaving about that subject in the same way that many American's behave regarding the official version of the JFK assassination: they buy it blindly because the alternative--a massive conspiracy removed not only the 35th president from office, but it also removed the Executive Branch of our government--is simply too much to bear.

Aren't you the same guy who insists that the Zapruder film is authentic? But, upon what research do you base this opinion, Robert? You haven't even looked at the evidence supporting alteration. By your own admission you haven't even read any of the books that have been scholarly written about the subject, yet you insist that the authors of such works are wrong, such as, Jack White, Jim Fetzer, Noel Twyman, Doug Horne, David Mantik, David Healey, and yes, even David Lifton, to name but a few. Each of these researchers has offered various proofs for their position favoring alteration. Perhaps they are wrong, but you have not even read their work! Your opinion is self-serving nonsense in this instance. You don't know and you can't support your arbitrary conclusion with facts because you have not done the work.

There are those on this forum with whom I disagree about Z-film alteration. There are others with whom I disagree about their CERTAINTY regarding the moon landings. But at least some of them have bothered to do their homework and studied the subject. Many haven't even done that prior to having reached a conclusion. You are definitely in the last group.

Even though I don't always agree with I Jim DiEugenio, I do resoect his position on Z-film alteration. He is agnostic about it because he admits that he doesn't know having not done the research on the subject. That is honest and what he chooses to study is his prerogative.

But for you or anyone to proclaim that you are certain that a qualified researcher is mistaken WHEN YOU HAVEN"T DONE ANY WORK TO OFFER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CLAIM is quite pathetic.

[snip] 9/11 clearly was not an "inside job."

And then you do it again... I am not claiming to know the truth about 9/11. But, you offer nothing in rebuttal to the evidence provided by dozens of EXPERTS on the subject! Why not just remain agnostic if you are unwilling to study the evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Monk,

I have lived 47+ years of life and based on that, my interactions with thousands of Americans and consuming vast quantities of America media, I conclude that the United States space program did indeed put a man on the moon. The odds against my being wrong on this, I estimate at 100,000,000 to one.

If you want to confer with a congregation of quacks and come out with the possibility of no man on the moon, at say, 50%, you are welcome to. Or to you can say you just do not have a clue, then go ahead (re: a moon landing).

As for Zapruder Film alteration, there is a minority of credible JFK researchers who think it was altered/fabricated etc. The is a majority of credible JFK researchers who think it was not altered. #1 among these is the world's expert in the film and photography of the JFK assassination - a man named Robert Groden. I put a lot of stock in Robert Groden, a regular presenter at COPA, and a man who has been involved in JFK film/photo work for 40 years.

In a coup d'etat situation, it is very possible that the murderers/ cover up artists of the JFK murder would alter the Zapruder Film. They destroyed or created *evidence* in other areas at will. Instead I think they chose to suppress the Zapruder film. I just use my common sense that if they really wanted to alter it they would have taken out the back head snap, something millions of Americans see as proof positive of a lying government and a coup d'etat.

Z-film alteration is a theory that is so weak, I just have trouble wasting my time *learning* about about the fantasies of the Z-film alterationists. It is like staring at your belly button, if you do it too much you will start hallucinating, seeing stars and fairies. Ditto Z-film alteration.

However the odds of Z-film alteration are far higher than the "no man on the moon" canard.

Over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Monk,

I have lived 47+ years of life and based on that, my interactions with thousands of Americans and consuming vast quantities of America media, I conclude that the United States space program did indeed put a man on the moon. The odds against my being wrong on this, I estimate at 100,000,000 to one.

If you want to confer with a congregation of quacks and come out with the possibility of no man on the moon, at say, 50%, you are welcome to. Or to you can say you just do not have a clue, then go ahead (re: a moon landing).

As for Zapruder Film alteration, there is a minority of credible JFK researchers who think it was altered/fabricated etc. The is a majority of credible JFK researchers who think it was not altered. #1 among these is the world's expert in the film and photography of the JFK assassination - a man named Robert Groden. I put a lot of stock in Robert Groden, a regular presenter at COPA, and a man who has been involved in JFK film/photo work for 40 years.

In a coup d'etat situation, it is very possible that the murderers/ cover up artists of the JFK murder would alter the Zapruder Film. They destroyed or created *evidence* in other areas at will. Instead I think they chose to suppress the Zapruder film. I just use my common sense that if they really wanted to alter it they would have taken out the back head snap, something millions of Americans see as proof positive of a lying government and a coup d'etat.

Z-film alteration is a theory that is so weak, I just have trouble wasting my time *learning* about about the fantasies of the Z-film alterationists. It is like staring at your belly button, if you do it too much you will start hallucinating, seeing stars and fairies. Ditto Z-film alteration.

However the odds of Z-film alteration are far higher than the "no man on the moon" canard.

Over.

Fair enough, in a sense. I've known Jack for almost 2 decades. Sometimes he has made hasty claims based on a snap judgment, but that has been extremely rare. However, the amount of work he has done to offer evidence in support of his conclusions is many times quite impressive. He is not always 100% correct. None of us are. But until I can rebut anyone's claims successfully, I think the better part of discretion, for me, is to suspend judgment until I can. But, to each his own.

I suppose I don't have a right to expect you not to express your beliefs. I just wish you'd offer "why" you don't think Jack's correct, instead of making pontifications. But, like I said, to each his own.

Out.

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?

Mr. Farley,

I do beg your indulgence, but this is my attempt to explain the problem of ascertaining the name of Mr. Witt’s dentist.

Since you were about 5 years old when Steve Witt testified, I’ll bet that today, in your late thirties, you would have no problem remembering the name of your own dentist (or ascertaining that dentist's identity, from a member of your family).

But the problem (in the comparable situation with Steve Witt, and the woman I knew around 1978, who had the same dentist as Witt, and from whom I heard Witt's story, "from the dentist's chair," so to speak) is that, if you were in my situation, you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

Ah yes, I'm so sorry, but life is replete with these irritating complexities.

Now just consider. . . suppose you knew a young maiden, back when you were five years old (let’s call her Adelaide), and Adelaide had a friend named Peggy Sue. . and so now in 2011, you want the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist from some 33 years ago.

So, you telephone Adelaide, and so begins that your process of inquiry.

Let’s imagine how that might go, shall we?

Adelaide comes to the phone, and we proceed from there.

* * *

Adelaide speaking. . .:

“Lee Farley! How good to hear from you. . My gosh. . we haven’t been in touch since 1978, remember, when we were five years old, and played I the same sandbox. Why, how are you Lee. . I just remember those days like yesterday. . So tell me, Lee, why are you calling?

And then you say, “Well, Adelaide, I’m calling because I’d like the phone number of our mutual friend Peggy Sue. . . remember Peggy Sue?. . Who played with us in the sandbox? And even sometimes went on that sliding pond? Remember Peggy Sue?"

And Adelaide replies. .

“Why Lee, that’s wonderful. . Of course I remember Peggy-Sue, and I just happen to know where Peggy is living. . in fact, she married a lawyer, and today they have twins, and they live in New Zealand. . in Christchurch. . . and I just happen to have her telephone number. .

And you say, “Oh Adelaide. . I’m so happy that you remember Peggy Sue, from our days in the sandbox. . I’ll call you back later so we can catch up . . meanwhile please do give me her phone number, for I’ve got to call Peggy Sue now.

And she says, “Well sure, Lee, but, if you don’t mind my asking. . why do you have to call Peggy Sue? You sound so concerned!”

“Well, I need to know the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist. . “

“Her dentist?“

“Yes, her dentist. . “

“Peggy Sue’s dentist?”

“Yes, Peggy Sue’s dentist.

"From back then?"

"Yes."

“Now why do you need her dentist’s name, Lee? I mean, its 2011. . “

“Adelaide, I just can’t talk about it just now. But I promise to call you back when I have time. . “

“Oh sure, Lee. I understand. Well, you do know, Peggy Sue and I had the same dentist. . . . Our mother’s were good friends, and so they took us both to the same dentist.”

“Oh really!? Well, then that is different. Well then, may please then ask you that queston? Can I get the name of the dentist from you, please?

“You mean the name of my dentist?

“Yes. Your dentist.

“Here in Liverpool?”

“Yes.”

“Back in 1978, when I was 5 years old?”

“Yes.”

“Lee, what is this all about? That was 33 years ago. . I don’t remember his name. . He was just was a dentist. . and I remember he walked around with an umbrella all the time. . you know, it rained a lot here in Liverpool.”

* * *

And so now you finally get off the phone. . and then you call your old friend, Peggy Sue, now in New Zealand. . Checking the time zones, of course, to make sure you don’t wake her up, because you are such a considerate fellow. . .

“Hello, Peggy? Its Lee Farley, and I’m calling you from Liverpool. .

"Lee!. . Lee Farley!! . .who used to scream and yell in the sandbox. . and throw sand in everyone’s face. . . So nice to hear from you!

“You remember me?

“Sure, I remember you. How could anyone forget? Remember. . you said that when you grew up, you wanted to be Sherlock Holmes. How could anyone forget that? Well then, how are you Lee?"

“Oh, I’m just fine. .

“Why are you calling? What I can do for you?"

“Well, actually, I’m calling to find the name of your dentist. .

“My dentist. . here in Christchurch?

“No . . your dentist back in Liverpool, back around 1978.

“But Lee, I was five years old then. . .

“ Yes, I know. But that’s what I need. I need his name.

“Really, Lee. You want the name of my dentist, in Liverpool, from 33 years ago?

“Yes, that’s what I want. If you remember his name.

“I really don’t remember, Lee. . I just don’t remember his name. Is this some type of criminal investigation? Will I be accused of something, if I can’t produce the name?

“ Try, Peggy Sue. . please. .. can’t you remember anything about him?

“Well, I do remember he walked around with, uh, . .

“With an umbrella?

“Yes, that’s right. With an umbrella. . How’d you know that?

“It’s a long story. . Well, Peggy Sue. .thanks a lot. We’ll talk some more, some day soon. OK?

END OF CONVERSATION

* * *

Well, Mr. Farley. . I think you get the idea.

No, I'm so sorry, but I cannot at this time locate the “friend of a friend” –from some 33 years ago—and find out the name of that person’s dentist (but rest assured that she did exist, and she did have the same dentist as Steve Witt. Because that’s what she personally told me.) And no, I did not keep records of those conversations, and so today, in 2011, I do not know who was the dentist of a friend of a friend some 33 years ago.

In lieu of that, please do go on and believe whatever it is you wish. I realize that perhaps this will open the floodgates of suspicion, but there's nothing that can be done about that. In fact, based on you past postings on this Forum, its clear that there's any number of people you proudly assert are (or were) liars, so if that's your appraisal of Witt, then so be it.

In fact, on your next trip to Dallas (I think you said you married a Texan) I do think you should pursue this matter, if you wish, and avail yourself of the opportunity of calling up Mr. Steve Witt himself, or his wife, or friends of his family, and conducting your own investigation and attempt to resolve this matter.

You should assure him that you’re not trying to harass him, or anything of the sort; that you just don’t believe his sworn, nationally televised testimony from 1978 , and that you think he’s a xxxx, at least on some crucial points. If he asks why, you can perhaps tell him you're really not singling him out; and that he shouldn’t take offense, that you are a Kennedy assassination researcher, and that you think that a number of people connected with the Warren commission investigation were liars and that you feel so strongly on the subject that you do in fact go around saying that publicly, on the Internet.

Anyway, after you make these inquiries, perhaps you can return, and share with us your, er, findings.

Undoubtedly, they will be of the highest relevance; and I’m sure there are those who await such inquiries of yours with baited breath.

Inquiring minds want to know.

At the risk of sounding like the late Edward R. Murrow, "Good night, and good luck."

DSL

12/12/11 3 AM

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you, David, are the one who made such a big song and dance about Lee stating how he thought Porter Bledsoe's phone call to the cops may have gone down? What's this -- the 3rd or 4th imaginary conversation you've posted now involving Lee? Becoming quite an obsession of yours to put words in Mr Farley's mouth...

Regarding Witt:

You claim that Witt, after learning that the HSCA had him pegged as the The Umbrella Man, told his dentist all about it and the dentist told a friend (of a friend?) who told you?

Doesn't that make the dentist and all those he told, less than useless witnesses? How does it matter who knew that Witt was TUM AFTER the HSCA had the information?

It is just plain preposterous that this story is used to prop up Witt as a truthful witness.

If I said I knew, PRIOR to the first newspaper accusation regarding the "crime", that LHO had shot at General Walker, that would be some big deal. But if I made that same claim only AFTER the accusation was published - then it is totally meaningless.

How does the dentist knowing Witt is TUM after Witt has already been "outed" as TUM, prove a godamn thing?

This is one of the most blatant displays of outrageous double-dealing duplicity since the Fine Cotton Affair.

I would like to ask at this point if Josiah Thompson stands by the "dentist story" as a good reason to believe Witt was TUM.

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?

Mr. Farley,

I do beg your indulgence, but this is my attempt to explain the problem of ascertaining the name of Mr. Witt’s dentist.

Since you were about 5 years old when Steve Witt testified, and no doubt your memory was nice and sharp back then, I’ll bet that today, at about age 38 or so, you would hve no problem remembering the name of your own dentist.

But the problem (in the comparable situation with Steve Witt, and the woman I knew around 1978, who had the same dentist as Witt, and from whom I heard Witt's story, "from the dentist's chair," so to speak) is that you’re not looking for your dentist or that of a friend, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

Ah yes, I'm so sorry, but life is sometimes intricate.

Just consider. . . suppose you knew a young maiden, back when you were five years old (let’s call her Adelaide), and Adelaide had a friend named Peggy Sue. . and so now in 2011, you want the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist from some 33 years ago.

So, you telephone Adelaide, and so begins that process of investigation.

Let’s imagine how that might go, shall we?

Adelaide comes to the phone, and we proceed from there.

* * *

Adelaide speaking. . .:

“Lee Farley! How good to hear from you. . My gosh. . we haven’t been in touch since 1978, remember, when we were five years old, and played I the same sandbox. Why, how are you Lee. . I just remember those days like yesterday. . So tell me, Lee, why are you calling?

And then you say, “Well, Adelaide, I’m calling because I’d like the phone number of our mutual friend Peggy Sue. . . remember Peggy Sue?. . Who played with us in the sandbox? And even sometimes went on that sliding pond? Remember Peggy Sue?"

And Adelaide replies. .

“Why Lee, that’s wonderful. . Of course I remember Peggy-Sue, and I just happen to know where Peggy is living. . in fact, she married a lawyer, and today they have twins, and they live in New Zealand. . in Christchurch. . . and I just happen to have her telephone number. .

And you say, “Oh Adelaide. . I’m so happy that you remember Peggy Sue, from our days in the sandbox. . I’ll call you back later so we can catch up . . meanwhile please do give me her phone number, for I’ve got to call Peggy Sue now.

And she says, “Well sure, Lee, but, if you don’t mind my asking. . why do you have to call Peggy Sue? You sound so concerned!”

“Well, I need to know the name of Peggy Sue’s dentist. . “

“Her dentist?“

“Yes, her dentist. . “

“Peggy Sue’s dentist?”

“Yes, Peggy Sue’s dentist.

“Now why do you need her dentist’s name, Lee? I mean, its 2011. . “

“Adelaide, I just can’t talk about it. Now. But I promise to call you back when I have time. . “

“Oh sure, Lee. I understand. Well, you do know, Peggy Sue and I had the same dentist. . . . Our mother’s were good friends, and so they took us both to the same dentist.”

“Oh really!? Well, then that is different. Well then, may please then ask you that queston? Can I get the name of the dentist from you, please?

“You mean the name of my dentist?

“Yes. Your dentist.

“Here in Liverpool?”

“Yes.”

“Bac in 1978, when I was 5 years old?”

“Yes.”

“Lee, what is this all about? That was 33 years ago. . I don’t remember his name. . He was just was a dentist. . and I remember he walked around with an umbrella all the time. . you know, it rained a lot here in Liverpool.”

* * *

And so now you finally get off the phone. . and then you call your old friend, Peggy Sue, now in New Zealand. . Checking the time zones, of course, to make sure you don’t wake her up, because you are such a considerate fellow. . .

“Hello, Peggy? Its Lee Farley, and I’m calling you from Liverpool. .

"Lee!. . Lee Farley!! . .who used to scream and yell in the sandbox. . and throw sand in everyone’s face. . . So nice to hear from you!

“You remember me?

“Sure, I remember you. How could anyone forget? Remember. . you said that when you grew up, you wanted to be Sherlock Holmes. How could anyone forget that? Well then, how are you Lee?"

“Oh, I’m just fine. .

“Why are you calling? What I can do for you?"

“Well, actually, I’m calling to find the name of your dentist. .

“My dentist. . here in Christchurch?

“No . . your dentist back in Liverpool, back around 1978.

“But Lee, I was five years old then. . .

“ Yes, I know. But that’s what I need. I need his name.

“Really, Lee. You want the name of my dentist, in Liverpool, 30 years ago?

“Yes, that’s what I want. If you remember his name.

“I really don’t remember, Lee. . I just don’t remember his name. Is this some type of criminal investigation? Will I be accused of something, if I can’t produce the name?

“ Try, Peggy Sue. . please. .. can’t you remember anything about him?

“Well, I do remember he walked around with, uh, . .

“With an umbrella?

“Yes, that’s right. With an umbrella. . How’d you know that?

“It’s a long story. . Well, Peggy Sue. .thanks a lot. We’ll talk some more, some day soon. OK?

END OF CONVERSATION

* * *

Well, Mr. Farley. . I think you get the idea.

No, I'm so sorry, but I cannot at this time locate the “friend of a friend” –from some 33 years ago—and find out the name of that person’s dentist (but rest assured that she did exist, and she did have the same dentist as Steve Witt. Because that’s what she personally told me.) And no, I did not keep records of those conversations, and so today, I do not know who was the dentist of a friend of a friend some 33 years ago.

In lieu of that, please do go on and believe whatever it is you wish.

In fact, on your next trip to Dallas (I think you said you married a Texan) I do think you should go even further, and avail yourself of the opportunity of calling up Mr. Steve Witt himself, or his wife, or a friend of his family, and conducting your own investigation. . .

You should assure him that you’re not trying to harass him, or anything of the sort; that you just don’t believe his sworn, nationally televised testimony from 1978 , and that you think he’s a xxxx. If he asks why, you can perhaps tell him you're really not singling him out; and that he shouldn’t take offense, that you are a Kennedy assassination researcher, and that you think that a number of people connected with the Warren commission investigation were liars and that you feel so strongly on the subject that you do in fact go around saying that publicly, on the Internet. .

Anyway, after you make these inquiries, perhaps you can return, and share with us your, er, findings.

Undoubtedly, they will be of the highest relevance; and I’m sure there are those who await such inquiries of yours with baited breath.

Inquiring minds want to know.

At the risk of sounding like the late Edward R. Murrow, "Good night, and good luck."

DSL

12/12/11 3 AM

Los Angeles, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

So, the admission - FINALLY - that our star researcher trafficks in wholly unreliable, unverifiable scuttlebutt of wholly unreliable, unverifiable and unknown provenance yet DEMANDS we accept it as probative. To borrow from Tink, that's SO ridiculous, it MUST be true.

Which is more cringe-worthy? The bankrupt LACK of methodology on display here? Or the fact that Lifton is apparently oblivious to how completely foolish this makes him seem, while demanding that we accept as genuine the crud he passes off as probative.

That the same man holds himself out as a paragon of logical analysis and sneers at what he presumes to be lesser mortals is just the icing on the cake. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness.

The imaginary conversations he hears in his head are just sad. He really ought not share them with us. They have no bearing on the case and should remain between he and his therapist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

So, the admission - FINALLY - that our star researcher trafficks in wholly unreliable, unverifiable scuttlebutt of wholly unreliable, unverifiable and unknown provenance yet DEMANDS we accept it as probative. To borrow from Tink, that's SO ridiculous, it MUST be true.

Which is more cringe-worthy? The bankrupt LACK of methodology on display here? Or the fact that Lifton is apparently oblivious to how completely foolish this makes him seem, while demanding that we accept as genuine the crud he passes off as probative.

That the same man holds himself out as a paragon of logical analysis and sneers at what he presumes to be lesser mortals is just the icing on the cake. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness.

The imaginary conversations he hears in his head are just sad. He really ought not share them with us. They have no bearing on the case and should remain between he and his therapist.

I've followed this thread from the outset, and have had NO problem following Lifton's line of thought. I am surprised, moreover, by the inability of others to follow his statements without seizing an opportunity to kick him around a bit.

I honestly don't get all this hostility.

Consider the series of events. (If I've got this wrong, please correct me.)

1. Researchers Thompson and Cutler, etc, identify the Umbrella Man as a person of interest.

2. When the HSCA comes into existence, it is decided that the researchers are correct on this one, and an effort is made to identify the Umbrella Man. His picture is posted in newspapers and (if I recall correctly) is even shown on TV.

3. No one comes forward.

4. Months pass by. During this period... 1) David Lifton hears from an acquaintance that Umbrella Man is Louie Steven Witt, and that Witt has admitted this to his dentist, who is also her dentist. 2) Penn Jones hears a similar story from one of Witt's co-workers.

5. Jones and Dallas Morning News reporter Earl Golz confront Witt, and he neither admits nor denies that he was the Umbrella Man. He says, however, that he is willing to talk to the HSCA. Golz writes an article on Witt. It is published 8-12-78.

6. Witt is interviewed that day by an HSCA investigator.

7. Witt is then brought in to testify in a televised broadcast. While his 9-25-78 testimony has little substance and is treated as entertainment, this is not surprising given the contentious nature of the HSCA's investigation, where any and every opportunity to show the skeptics that the committee was making discoveries and solving mysteries was seized upon.

Now, given this chain of events, and given that he'd already come to the conclusion that studying the autopsy was the key to understanding the assassination, how can anyone honestly fault Lifton for not following up and interviewing the dentist, etc. Geez, I've had dozens of leads I've failed to follow up on. I'm sure we all do. There's simply not enough time to follow every possible lead, and nail down every detail.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

So, the admission - FINALLY - that our star researcher trafficks in wholly unreliable, unverifiable scuttlebutt of wholly unreliable, unverifiable and unknown provenance yet DEMANDS we accept it as probative. To borrow from Tink, that's SO ridiculous, it MUST be true.

Which is more cringe-worthy? The bankrupt LACK of methodology on display here? Or the fact that Lifton is apparently oblivious to how completely foolish this makes him seem, while demanding that we accept as genuine the crud he passes off as probative.

That the same man holds himself out as a paragon of logical analysis and sneers at what he presumes to be lesser mortals is just the icing on the cake. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness.

The imaginary conversations he hears in his head are just sad. He really ought not share them with us. They have no bearing on the case and should remain between he and his therapist.

I've followed this thread from the outset, and have had NO problem following Lifton's line of thought. I am surprised, moreover, by the inability of others to follow his statements without seizing an opportunity to kick him around a bit.

I honestly don't get all this hostility.

Consider the series of events. (If I've got this wrong, please correct me.)

1. Researchers Thompson and Cutler, etc, identify the Umbrella Man as a person of interest.

2. When the HSCA comes into existence, it is decided that the researchers are correct on this one, and an effort is made to identify the Umbrella Man. His picture is posted in newspapers and (if I recall correctly) is even shown on TV.

Pat -- please. They were covering their backsides. The Executive Session transcripts spell it out. They did it to shut the critics up by appearing to take their concerns seriously. In reality, hey had already decided that any theory surrounding TUM was the stuff of fantasy.

3. No one comes forward.

4. Months pass by. During this period... 1) David Lifton hears from an acquaintance that Umbrella Man is Louie Steven Witt, and that Witt has admitted this to his dentist, who is also her dentist. 2) Penn Jones hears a similar story from one of Witt's co-workers.

How are you so certain of your timeline when Lifton won't or can't say when exactly he heard about the dentist?

Here's what the press reported:

"The Umbrella Man remained anonymous until the committee distributed the pictures and issued a public appeal for information about him last July. Witt, a Dallas warehouse manager, saw the pictures and news stories and realized to his chagrin that he was the Umbrella Man. "Having no particular interest in the assassination case, I drifted along all these years without coming across any of these theories. Had you never found me, I would have been far happier than I am at the moment"

Put aside for a second, the entirely unlikely story that a witness to the crime of the century assiduously avoids reading anything at all about the case, avoids discussion about the case and remains oblivious to anything and everything about the case for a solid 15 years. But then, suddenly, he does notice one story: they are looking for an umbrella-wielding assassination witness whose identity is unknown. He realizes this witness is none other than himself. He later regrets being found. But how was he found? Well, apparently, after 15 years of stony silence about the assassination, on top of a complete personal media blackout, he could no longer keep his mouth shut and blabbed to one and all that he was the infamous umbrella-wielder.

Put all that aside. Put aside that we have no evidence that it was a co-worker who contacted Penn Jones. Put aside that he have no names in the chain of Chinese Whisperers presented by Lifton.

What I want to know is how Lifton's story about the dentist helps verify that Witt was TUM. If Witt had told the dentist BEFORE the HSCA released the photos, and that could be verified, you have something. All you have to deal with then is Witt's press statement that he was blissfully unaware of the controversy he caused until he saw the HSCA photo release...

5. Jones and reporter Earl Golz confront Witt, and he admits that he was the Umbrella Man. Golz writes an article on Witt.

Yet no one could ever prove it was him. All he had to do was deny it and say yes, he told co workers it was him, but he was just joking, and he could go back to being anonymous. Please don't try and say he admitted it out of civic duty. It doesn't fit the profile of a witness to a major crime not following any news stories whatsoever about it and not even talking about it in 15 years - with this total blackout having nothing to do with being traumatized, but everything to do with antipathy toward the victim.

6. Witt is then interviewed by the HSCA.

7. Witt is then brought in to testify in a televised broadcast. While his testimony has little substance and is treated as entertainment, this is not surprising given the contentious nature of the HSCA's investigation, where any and every opportunity to show the skeptics that the committee was making discoveries and solving mysteries was seized upon.

? Sorry. Probably just me, but I can't follow what you're getting at there.

Now, given this chain of events, and given that he'd already come to the conclusion that studying the autopsy was the key to understanding the assassination, how can anyone honestly fault Lifton for not following up and interviewing the dentist, etc. Geez, I've had dozens of leads I've failed to follow up on. I'm sure we all do. There's simply not enough time to follow every possible lead, and nail down every detail.

The story is only a problem because it was used to prop up Witt's credibility as a witness. If it hadn't been used in this way, no one would give a toss whether Lifton remembered any names. But the reality is that the story was accepted by Josiah Thompson as is - and used as is. Name one other person who would cite 3rd or 4th hand hearsay where no names are even known, to support a claim they wish to make about the veracity of of a witness. It doesn't happen, and shouldn't happen, and I believe Tink should surface to explain why he used it.

And don't get me started about the Arizona story Witt came up with...

Edited by Pat Speer
No edit was made. I pushed a wrong button.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you'd not be looking for your own dentist or that of a friend's dentist, but the person who was the dentist of a friend of that friend.

So, the admission - FINALLY - that our star researcher trafficks in wholly unreliable, unverifiable scuttlebutt of wholly unreliable, unverifiable and unknown provenance yet DEMANDS we accept it as probative. To borrow from Tink, that's SO ridiculous, it MUST be true.

Which is more cringe-worthy? The bankrupt LACK of methodology on display here? Or the fact that Lifton is apparently oblivious to how completely foolish this makes him seem, while demanding that we accept as genuine the crud he passes off as probative.

That the same man holds himself out as a paragon of logical analysis and sneers at what he presumes to be lesser mortals is just the icing on the cake. Some people have absolutely no self-awareness.

The imaginary conversations he hears in his head are just sad. He really ought not share them with us. They have no bearing on the case and should remain between he and his therapist.

I've followed this thread from the outset, and have had NO problem following Lifton's line of thought. I am surprised, moreover, by the inability of others to follow his statements without seizing an opportunity to kick him around a bit.

I honestly don't get all this hostility.

Consider the series of events. (If I've got this wrong, please correct me.)

1. Researchers Thompson and Cutler, etc, identify the Umbrella Man as a person of interest.

2. When the HSCA comes into existence, it is decided that the researchers are correct on this one, and an effort is made to identify the Umbrella Man. His picture is posted in newspapers and (if I recall correctly) is even shown on TV.

Pat -- please. They were covering their backsides. The Executive Session transcripts spell it out. They did it to shut the critics up by appearing to take their concerns seriously. In reality, hey had already decided that any theory surrounding TUM was the stuff of fantasy.

3. No one comes forward.

4. Months pass by. During this period... 1) David Lifton hears from an acquaintance that Umbrella Man is Louie Steven Witt, and that Witt has admitted this to his dentist, who is also her dentist. 2) Penn Jones hears a similar story from one of Witt's co-workers.

How are you so certain of your timeline when Lifton won't or can't say when exactly he heard about the dentist?

Here's what the press reported:

"The Umbrella Man remained anonymous until the committee distributed the pictures and issued a public appeal for information about him last July. Witt, a Dallas warehouse manager, saw the pictures and news stories and realized to his chagrin that he was the Umbrella Man. "Having no particular interest in the assassination case, I drifted along all these years without coming across any of these theories. Had you never found me, I would have been far happier than I am at the moment"

Put aside for a second, the entirely unlikely story that a witness to the crime of the century assiduously avoids reading anything at all about the case, avoids discussion about the case and remains oblivious to anything and everything about the case for a solid 15 years. But then, suddenly, he does notice one story: they are looking for an umbrella-wielding assassination witness whose identity is unknown. He realizes this witness is none other than himself. He later regrets being found. But how was he found? Well, apparently, after 15 years of stony silence about the assassination, on top of a complete personal media blackout, he could no longer keep his mouth shut and blabbed to one and all that he was the infamous umbrella-wielder.

Put all that aside. Put aside that we have no evidence that it was a co-worker who contacted Penn Jones. Put aside that he have no names in the chain of Chinese Whisperers presented by Lifton.

What I want to know is how Lifton's story about the dentist helps verify that Witt was TUM. If Witt had told the dentist BEFORE the HSCA released the photos, and that could be verified, you have something. All you have to deal with then is Witt's press statement that he was blissfully unaware of the controversy he caused until he saw the HSCA photo release...

5. Jones and reporter Earl Golz confront Witt, and he admits that he was the Umbrella Man. Golz writes an article on Witt.

Yet no one could ever prove it was him. All he had to do was deny it and say yes, he told co workers it was him, but he was just joking, and he could go back to being anonymous. Please don't try and say he admitted it out of civic duty. It doesn't fit the profile of a witness to a major crime not following any news stories whatsoever about it and not even talking about it in 15 years - with this total blackout having nothing to do with being traumatized, but everything to do with antipathy toward the victim.

6. Witt is then interviewed by the HSCA.

7. Witt is then brought in to testify in a televised broadcast. While his testimony has little substance and is treated as entertainment, this is not surprising given the contentious nature of the HSCA's investigation, where any and every opportunity to show the skeptics that the committee was making discoveries and solving mysteries was seized upon.

? Sorry. Probably just me, but I can't follow what you're getting at there.

Now, given this chain of events, and given that he'd already come to the conclusion that studying the autopsy was the key to understanding the assassination, how can anyone honestly fault Lifton for not following up and interviewing the dentist, etc. Geez, I've had dozens of leads I've failed to follow up on. I'm sure we all do. There's simply not enough time to follow every possible lead, and nail down every detail.

The story is only a problem because it was used to prop up Witt's credibility as a witness. If it hadn't been used in this way, no one would give a toss whether Lifton remembered any names. But the reality is that the story was accepted by Josiah Thompson as is - and used as is. Name one other person who would cite 3rd or 4th hand hearsay where no names are even known, to support a claim they wish to make about the veracity of of a witness. It doesn't happen, and shouldn't happen, and I believe Tink should surface to explain why he used it.

And don't get me started about the Arizona story Witt came up with...

You need to look at it in context. The HSCA was the critics' commission, not the President's commission. No one in the government wanted it. It was created to appease the critics. So...if the critics made it a priority to find Umbrella Man, the committee followed. And if the critics identified a common worker like Witt as the Umbrella Man, the HSCA was more than happy to oblige and broadcast the news of his discovery, if only to justify to those opposing the committee's creation that it wasn't a puppet of...the critics.

Now, could an op have been cooked up to fool the critics into "discovering" Witt? Of course... But what would be the point, when other mysteries like the identity of the Mexico City Mystery Man had been left hanging?

We have NO evidence anyone other than Witt was Umbrella Man.

We have NO evidence Witt was associated with anyone who'd want him to pretend he was Umbrella Man, or lie about any other aspect of his story.

All we have is his story, which no one then or now can refute, other than to say they CHOOSE not to believe it.

And, oh yeah, there's this. Witt looks like Umbrella Man.

Now, the trail is quite cold, but if you feel you can nail that bad guy Louie Witt, go at it. But you shouldn't feel all superior to those who, back when the trail was fresh, felt they had better things to do...

And you shouldn't get all agitated that someone like Thompson--who was there at the creation--now finds the Umbrella Man story he'd helped propagate a silly giggle-worthy diversion...

Edited by Pat Speer
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...