Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Craig Lamson]

Pat, all your pet theories on the back/throat wounds are pinned to the notion that 2 inches of JFK's jacket, 2 inches of his shirt, AND the collar of his jacket all occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

The absurdity is Cliff Varnell making this absurd statement....

And of course it is unimpeachable that at Betzner the jacket had a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back as witnessed by the fact that the shadow from JFK's neck which MUST fall over the entire width of his jacket collar at the rear center of his neck is hidden....by the 3"+ fold.

Poof Cliff, you are done.

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat, all your pet theories on the back/throat wounds are pinned to the notion that 2 inches of JFK's jacket, 2 inches of his shirt, AND the collar of his jacket all occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

The absurdity is Cliff Varnell making this absurd statement....

And of course it is unimpeachable that at Betzner the jacket had a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back as witnessed by the fact that the shadow from JFK's neck which MUST fall over the entire width of his jacket collar at the rear center of his neck is hidden....by the 3"+ fold.

Poof Cliff, you are done.

Hidden shadows!

Pat, I hope you're paying attention to Craig's blather because you own it.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Craig Lamson]

Pat, all your pet theories on the back/throat wounds are pinned to the notion that 2 inches of JFK's jacket, 2 inches of his shirt, AND the collar of his jacket all occupied the exact same physical space at the exact same time.

It doesn't get any more absurd than that.

The absurdity is Cliff Varnell making this absurd statement....

And of course it is unimpeachable that at Betzner the jacket had a 3"+ fold of fabric on the back as witnessed by the fact that the shadow from JFK's neck which MUST fall over the entire width of his jacket collar at the rear center of his neck is hidden....by the 3"+ fold.

Poof Cliff, you are done.

Hidden shadows!

Pat, I hope you're paying attention to Craig's blather because you own it.

Yes Cliff a HIDDEN shadow..you know the work you have tried for years to impeach but have failed to do time and time again.

You only mock your own ignorance of how the unbending laws of light and shadow work Cliff. Enjoy!

[Cliff Varnell]

The umbrella was a weapon of mass distraction designed to marginalize the blood-soluble flechette scenario. And what a successful distraction campaign it's been, with researchers falling all over Louis Steven Witt instead of looking harder at that master of assassination weaponry -- Mitchell WerBell III.

From namebase:

WERBELL MITCHELL LIVINGSTON III

Anderson,S.& J. Inside the League. 1986 (181-2)

Back Channels 1995-W (10)

Berkeley Barb 1976-09-02 (3)

Berlet,C. Right Woos Left. 1991-12-16 (16, 54, 57)

Branch,T. Propper,E. Labyrinth. 1983 (182)

Brewton,P. The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush. 1992 (194-5)

CounterSpy 1980-SP (21)

CounterSpy 1981-01 (28)

CounterSpy 1983-02 (7-8)

Covert Action Information Bulletin 1981-#12 (19)

Covert Action Information Bulletin 1987-#27 (52)

Donner,F. The Age of Surveillance. 1981 (435)

EIR. Dope, Inc. 1992 (575)

Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (67-72, 237-40, 265)

Goddard,D. Coleman,L. Trail of the Octopus. 1993 (103)

Guardian (New York) 1981-12-02 (6)

Heiner,K. Without Smoking Gun. 2004 (78)

Herman,E. O'Sullivan,G. The Terrorism Industry. 1989 (138-9)

Hinckle,W. Turner,W. The Fish is Red. 1981 (ix, 234, 251-9, 333-5)

Hougan,J. Spooks. 1979 (3-28, 79-83)

King,D. Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism. 1989 (40, 179, 188-94, 201, 327-30)

Kruger,H. The Great Heroin Coup. 1980 (8, 16, 164, 181-6)

Kwitny,J. The Crimes of Patriots. 1987 (276-80)

Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (158)

Livingstone,N. The Cult of Counterterrorism. 1990 (78-9)

Lobster Magazine (Britain) 1986-#12 (7-8)

Marshall,J. Drug Wars. 1991 (61)

Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (32, 62-8, 252)

McCoy,A. The Politics of Heroin. 1991 (473)

Messick,H. Of Grass and Snow. 1979 (75, 81-4, 169)

Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (42-4, 319-20, 399)

Neff,J. Mobbed Up. 1989 (246)

New Republic 1984-11-19 (18, 24)

O'Toole,G. The Private Sector. 1978 (168)

Parapolitics (Paris) 1982-09 (3)

Parapolitics/USA 1981-10-31 (9)

Parapolitics/USA 1981-SP (11)

Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (28)

Parapolitics/USA 1983-06-01 (B12)

Public Eye Magazine 1977-F (11)

Public Eye Magazine 1982 (8)

Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (79)

Thomas,K. Keith,J. The Octopus. 1996 (71, 74)

Vankin,J. Conspiracies, Cover-ups, and Crimes. 1991 (34, 45)

Washington Post 1985-01-14 (A19)

Washington Post 1985-01-15 (A6)

[Cliff Varnell]

From namebase:

WERBELL MITCHELL LIVINGSTON III

Namebase missed one:

Twyman, N. Bloody Treason 1997 (665, 680, 700, 701)

On page 665 Gerry Hemming tells Twyman:

"Silencers were used extensively. These were sionic silencers purchased from Mitchell WerBell."

[Cliff Varnell]

On page 665 Gerry Hemming tells Twyman:

"Silencers were used extensively. These were sionic silencers purchased from Mitchell WerBell."

Fonzi, G. The Last Investigation, pg 68:

WerBell has been called a creative genius for his designs of noise suppressors for automatic weapons and for other "silent-kill" devices. He has also been termed the "principle supplier of the CIA's most sophisticated weapons."

Edited December 16, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Burnham]

Gerry and I probably spent the better part of 5 full--8 hour--days discussing WerBell alone. None should dismiss out of hand the weapons programs being employed in the 1960's. It was an era of "cowboy atmosphere married to a James Bond romanticism" replete with fancy gadgets, codes, ciphers, and exotic weapons. There is no better place to test devices than in the field. Of course, you wouldn't test a new device on a chief executive. You'd employ a device that had already been field tested and passed with flying colors.

[David Lifton]

[snipped]

The point I've been trying to make is that the shallowness of the HSCA's investigation was readily apparent to ALL the researchers of the period, and that NONE of them (not just Lifton and Thompson) thought Witt mysterious enough to lift a finger and make a few calls. This suggests to me that the research community--taken as a whole--accepted his story, and that it is primarily those who weren't there at the time who continue to believe that "something strange was afoot at the Circle K..."

As far as I know, reporter Earl Golz and Penn Jones both accepted the identification of Witt as the man with the umbrella;and, implicitly at least, accepted Witt's story for why he was there.

Does anyone have contrary information?

Did either Penn Jones or Earl Golz ever write anything to the contrary?

One other thing: the brief moment when Witt opened the umbrella (and it malfunctioned, and then Stokes made his joking remark(s) ) was really only a small part of the interrogation. If one reads through the entire transcript, there was a lot of reasonably thorough questioning of Witt, and the whole business of Prime Minister Chamberlain, the history there, etc. One of the HSCA members--Fithian, as I recall--said he wanted to write a memorandum on the subject of Chamberlain, and that it should be inserted into the record (there is no such memo, I note, which is unfortunate).

As I said recently, I wish the HSCA staff had collected affidavits from Witt's family, friends, etc., to flesh out his story.

I think the real problem is that a number of people who came to this rather late in the game became enamored of a sinister hypothesis, and simply refuse to accept Witt and his account. So they come on this forum, years later, and berate Blakey and the HSCA on this matter; or complain that, 35 years later, I can't produce the person who had the same dentist as Witt. Oh pleez. . .

The real problem with Blakey (and other HSCA staff members) is that I was in repeated--and intense--contact with him and his staff urging them to deal with the issue of autopsy falsification, and he did not do his job properly. He was enamored of his Mafia hypothesis; and, furthermore, he believed the Single Bullet Theory. He refused to believe that the autopsy evidence could have been falsified.

I spoke with Blakey for at least an hour, in October 1978, about the problem of the chain of possession on Kennedy's body. I also spoke to other staff members about these issues, including Andrew Purdy. When the documents became available decades later, I find--to my amazement--that the HSCA's concept of an "investigation" in this area is that a staffer called up Greer, on the telephone, to find out whether anyone could have messed with the body, that Greer replied in the negative, and that the staff then summarized that call in a one page handwritten document.

End of investigation--HSCA style.

That was the problem. Not whether Stokes made a bad joke about someone with an umbrella.

DSL

[Greg Parker]

[snipped]

The point I've been trying to make is that the shallowness of the HSCA's investigation was readily apparent to ALL the researchers of the period, and that NONE of them (not just Lifton and Thompson) thought Witt mysterious enough to lift a finger and make a few calls. This suggests to me that the research community--taken as a whole--accepted his story, and that it is primarily those who weren't there at the time who continue to believe that "something strange was afoot at the Circle K..."

As far as I know, reporter Earl Golz and Penn Jones both accepted the identification of Witt as the man with the umbrella;and, implicitly at least, accepted Witt's story for why he was there.

Does anyone have contrary information?

Did either Penn Jones or Earl Golz ever write anything to the contrary?

Yes. Don J said in this very thread "Whatever Jones may have thought initially about Witt, after he appeared before the HSCA, his testimony was lambasted thoroughly in the pages of his newsletter, The Continuing Inquiry."

One other thing: the brief moment when Witt opened the umbrella (and it malfunctioned, and then Stokes made his joking remark(s) ) was really only a small part of the interrogation. If one reads through the entire transcript, there was a lot of reasonably thorough questioning of Witt, and the whole business of Prime Minister Chamberlain, the history there, etc. One of the HSCA members--Fithian, as I recall--said he wanted to write a memorandum on the subject of Chamberlain, and that it should be inserted into the record (there is no such memo, I note, which is unfortunate).

Fithian's suggestion was taken so seriously, Sawyer asked if that went ahead, he'd like to write a page on the subject of Scotch.

As I said recently, I wish the HSCA staff had collected affidavits from Witt's family, friends, etc., to flesh out his story.

Yada yada yada. Who cares, David? Really? You don't need no steenkin' evidence. You have 3rd or 4th generation hearsay along with Josiah's proclamation that his story was so weird it had to be the truth -- all fully endorsed as "good enough" by the most careful of all JFK investigators -- Jefferson Morley.

(Still shaking my head at that...)

I think the real problem is that a number of people who came to this rather late in the game became enamored of a sinister hypothesis, and simply refuse to accept Witt and his account. So they come on this forum, years later, and berate Blakey and the HSCA on this matter; or complain that, 35 years later, I can't produce the person who had the same dentist as Witt. Oh pleez. . .

Still struggling with what is explained in plain English by multiple people in multiple ways I see.

I've lost count what we're up to, but once again just for the halibut... no one would be complaining about anything if Josiah had not invoked your hearsay as being dispositive of Witt's truthfulness.

Witt does not, in any way shape or form, loom large in my own endeavors to arrive at the truth - or as close to it as I can. There are easier, cleaner and better supported avenues.

The real problem with Blakey (and other HSCA staff members) is that I was in repeated--and intense--contact with him and his staff urging them to deal with the issue of autopsy falsification, and he did not do his job properly. He was enamored of his Mafia hypothesis; and, furthermore, he believed the Single Bullet Theory. He refused to believe that the autopsy evidence could have been falsified.

I spoke with Blakey for at least an hour, in October 1978, about the problem of the chain of possession on Kennedy's body. I also spoke to other staff members about these issues, including Andrew Purdy. When the documents became available decades later, I find--to my amazement--that the HSCA's concept of an "investigation" in this area is that a staffer called up Greer, on the telephone, to find out whether anyone could have messed with the body, that Greer replied in the negative, and that the staff then summarized that call in a one page handwritten document.

End of investigation--HSCA style.

That was the problem. Not whether Stokes made a bad joke about someone with an umbrella.

Yes. We all know. The sole problem with the HSCA is that they didn't take you seriously. It is one problem some share with the HSCA. Badges are in order.

DSL

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert Morrow appears to be schizophrenic when it comes to research. While he sometimes makes valuable points,

such as his conviction that LBJ was a pivotal player in the assassination of JFK, on other fronts, he flunks. Leaving

the moon landings to the side, let's focus on the Zapruder film, which he really ought to know better, and 9/11, since

he has displayed his cavalier attitude toward that subject over and over again in the course of this specific thread:

1) on the alteration of the Zapruder film, he has no idea how much evidence we have the proves the film is fake:

"US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

"JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

2) on 9/11 having been "an inside job", again his ignorance with respect to the available evidence is stunning:

"20 reasons the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/10/20-reasons-the-official-account-of-911-is-wrong/

"Peeling the 9/11 Onion: Layers of Plot within Plots"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/08/14/peeling-the-911-onion-layers-of-plots-within-plots/

Or take a recent piece by Joshua Blakeney in response to attacks upon him by a former professor of philosophy:

"An Open Letter to Dr. Paul Viminitz"

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-paul-viminitz/

which cites 10 studies that demonstrate that 9/11 was indeed an "inside job". For any of these, I hereby challenge

Robert Morrow to formulate the arguments being presented and the evidence on which they are based and then,

if he can, to explain what they have wrong and how he knows. I have no doubt that he cannot accomplish any of

this, which will thereby reveal that, when it comes to Zapruder film fakery and to 9/11, he simply hasn't a clue.

Jim

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."

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

While I agree with David about his research on body alteration and all that, I disagree with him about the role of the Umbrella man and the Cuban. In particular, although I was initially skeptical of his claims, Witts' testimony about the limo stop convinced me that he had been there. I also infer from his association with the Cuban, whose behavior appears to be anything but innocent, that they were "up to no good" together.

I agree that hearing this story from a third party is not very persuasive, where I tend to accept your critique. Monk has told me that what Witt reported to the HSCA does not comport with his own observations of "the other film", which deserves consideration. Would you tend to agree that, setting David's story to the side, there are reasons to believe that Witt may have been there and have had a role to play in the assassination of JFK?

Lifton discounts the pumping-umbrella, which appears to have been established by proof I presented in the introduction to this thread. To the best of my knowledge, he has no military experience and is in no position to discount that a pumping umbrella, which would have been visible from all the shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, may have meant, "The target is still alive--keep shooting!", which is my own preferred interpretation.

Jim

The point is, Robert, that Lifton's failure to follow-up on the "dentist" story is justified by the fact that other researchers had identified Umbrella man in a similar manner. It was not his particular area of interest. He didn't live in Dallas. He stood by while others tracked down Witt, and the HSCA followed their lead. No one can reasonably fault him for this. I highly doubt that anyone on this forum is so thorough they would have done otherwise.

His "dentist" story, IMO, is little more than HIS insight into the matter. The forum benefits greatly by the input of people like Lifton and Thompson--people who were "there" for the bulk of the ride. If you don't want to believe him, don't believe him. But, in both my understanding of Lifton from others, and my own experiences with him, he has shown himself to be honest in his recollections, and not someone to make up some story about a dentist just to mess with others. Now, keep in mind that I disagree with many of his conclusions... But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?

Pardon me if I'm misreading this, but it appears to me that you are questioning Lifton's story in total, that is, you suspect he JUST MADE IT UP. And that is totally unjustified, IMO.

As far as the rest of your post, I pretty much agree. Although I doubt Gilbride's conclusions, he has proven himself to be a serious researcher, IMO, via his acquisition and sharing of the HSCA's interviews of Oswald's co-workers. These are only available on Greg's website. Greg should be complimented for hosting Gilbride's articles and materials, IMO, and not dragged over the coals.

Pat, as you know, if people wish to be taken seriously, there are rules for gathering and interpreting evidence. The first such rule of evidence is “provide some.”

Lifton’s sole contribution to this thread has been to say that he allegedly heard third-hand an unverifiable story that Witt allegedly told his dentist. From this, he asserts that it’s case closed. Except that were this any other researcher, he’d be laughed out of the marketplace of ideas for so cheeky a paucity of evidence for his contention. Unattributable gossip isn’t evidence, let alone proof.

You say that I “suspect he JUST MADE IT UP. And that is totally unjustified, IMO.” I suspect no such thing. But I don’t believe anything anyone insists I should just because they insist I should. Call me old-fashioned, but I draw conclusions from evidence, not merely reiteration or vehemence.

I don’t begrudge Lifton’s right to believe whatever he likes; I refuse to grant him the right to insult those who disagree and ask for actual evidence for his contentions. Is there another member here with the audacity to say “I heard something from someone a long time ago about Witt’s dentist,” and thereby expect it to be accepted at face value without providing the necessaries: the name of Witt’s dentist or the names of those who daisy-chained the tale to Lifton’s ears? I don’t fault him for not following it up then; I do fault him for thinking the repetition today of something so meaningless should sway Forum members, most of whom are not gullible idiots.

As already pointed out by me previously in this thread, Lifton has asserted that there is something wrong with people who don’t take Witt’s story at face value, because the umbrella can only refer to “appeasement,” something Witt maintained he heard had angered Kennedy. Evidence presented by Lifton and Witt for these contentions? Zero. Evidence available to those who have searched for it? Zero.

Yet the same Lifton - in this very thread - chided both himself and Tink Thompson for not instantly realizing to what Witt’s use of the umbrella pertained. No researcher can simultaneously assert that he himself didn’t recognize its significance for 15 years, yet now claim to others they are somehow faulty for not instantly realizing what he, himself, didn’t understand until it was explained to him.

Whenever Lifton is pressed for evidence he doesn’t have, he lashes out at others, questions their sanity, puts words into their mouths - with hallucinated dialogues - that they themselves haven’t said, or uses guilt-by association tactics, as he attempted to do with Greg Parker’s website. Needless to say, this self-evident pattern of immaterial insinuations happens only because he wishes to distract attention away from his own gross failings, attempting to impugn others. To the Forum’s everlasting detriment, he is given a pass by its moderators when attacking fellow members this way; Farley and Parker mostly, but not exclusively.

This is not the hallmark of a neutral researcher, or even an ardent advocate. It is the trait of a bully who holds others to a standard which he refuses to apply to himself. When all this fails, he bellows words to the effect: “What’s wrong with all you people? Why can’t you connect the dots?” Were there evidence, there would be no need to read dots like tea leaves.

You say that from your dealings with him, Lifton strikes you as honest. Despite the fact that this is hardly a universally held opinion, I state unequivocally that his honesty is entirely immaterial to the issues at hand.

Lifton is free to dismiss the significance of the Umbrella Man and the Dark Complected Man for whatever reasons he chooses, tooth fairies included.

He is not free to insist that others follow suit on his say-so alone, particularly when it is based upon nothing more than third or fourth party gossip of undetermined provenance. That he ridicules others for not agreeing with so specious an example of “connecting the dots” - to use one of his favorite meaningless phrases - earns him the upbraiding he deserves and gets from fellow members.

You don’t like Lifton being expected to put up or shut up as is expected of all others here? Then why don’t you provide the evidence he hasn’t, and then we’ll see what grounds there are to dismiss Witt’s story as true? If you cannot be bothered, you’ve just joined Tink and Lifton in a club of men who’ll believe what suits them without requiring evidence.

I don’t take such men very seriously precisely because they do not provide reasons to do so. I don’t think that’s so terribly difficult to grasp, no matter how complicated you struggle to make it appear.

Edited December 17, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[David Lifton]

REPLY BY DSL:

FWIW (and for the record): I have never really focused on the "dark complected man". Yes, he could be sinister; but maybe not. My point is that there are any number of people in Dealey Plaza who were never identified and who could also be quite important. For example, what about the person (in the background of some of the later frames of the Z film, towards the end) who is holding up the sign which reads (I was told by the late Dick Sprague): JFK you SOB. .

Is that a "fact"? In any event, whatever that sign reads, how in the world could the FBI have conducted its investigation and there be no paper trail as to (a) who is is and/or (b ) of any attempt to identify him?

Another point: based on the testimony of Witt, we now have two people who are "next to" someone who makes remarks, and who have never been identified:

(a) Witt. . who testifies that the man next to him said "I believe someone shot them folks" (or some such thing)

(b ) Emmet Hudson, who testified that one of the men standing on the stairs next to him said; "Sit down mister, sit down. Someone is shooting the President" (from memory).

Finally, this point (re the pumping of the umbrella): if the Z film has been altered, what is now called the "pumping" of the umbrella may be exaggerated (or at least not an accurate representation) for the same reason that (if the Z film was altered) the backward "head snap" may be an artifact of film alteration. Just a thought.

DSL

Robert,

While I agree with David about his research on body alteration and all that, I disagree with him about the role of the Umbrella man and the Cuban. In particular, although I was initially skeptical of his claims, Witts' testimony about the limo stop convinced me that he had been there. I also infer from his association with the Cuban, whose behavior appears to be anything but innocent, that they were "up to no good" together.

I agree that hearing this story from a third party is not very persuasive, where I tend to accept your critique. Monk has told me that what Witt reported to the HSCA does not comport with his own observations of "the other film", which deserves consideration. Would you tend to agree that, setting David's story to the side, there are reasons to believe that Witt may have been there and have had a role to play in the assassination of JFK?

Lifton discounts the pumping-umbrella, which appears to have been established by proof I presented in the introduction to this thread. To the best of my knowledge, he has no military experience and is in no position to discount that a pumping umbrella, which would have been visible from all the shooting locations in Dealey Plaza, may have meant, "The target is still alive--keep shooting!", which is my own preferred interpretation.

Jim

The point is, Robert, that Lifton's failure to follow-up on the "dentist" story is justified by the fact that other researchers had identified Umbrella man in a similar manner. It was not his particular area of interest. He didn't live in Dallas. He stood by while others tracked down Witt, and the HSCA followed their lead. No one can reasonably fault him for this. I highly doubt that anyone on this forum is so thorough they would have done otherwise.

His "dentist" story, IMO, is little more than HIS insight into the matter. The forum benefits greatly by the input of people like Lifton and Thompson--people who were "there" for the bulk of the ride. If you don't want to believe him, don't believe him. But, in both my understanding of Lifton from others, and my own experiences with him, he has shown himself to be honest in his recollections, and not someone to make up some story about a dentist just to mess with others. Now, keep in mind that I disagree with many of his conclusions... But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?

Pardon me if I'm misreading this, but it appears to me that you are questioning Lifton's story in total, that is, you suspect he JUST MADE IT UP. And that is totally unjustified, IMO.

As far as the rest of your post, I pretty much agree. Although I doubt Gilbride's conclusions, he has proven himself to be a serious researcher, IMO, via his acquisition and sharing of the HSCA's interviews of Oswald's co-workers. These are only available on Greg's website. Greg should be complimented for hosting Gilbride's articles and materials, IMO, and not dragged over the coals.

[RCD's stuff snipped. . the usual. . ]

Edited December 18, 2011 by David Lifton

[Greg Burnham]

David Lifton said:

FWIW (and for the record): I have never really focused on the "dark complected man". Yes, he could be sinister; but maybe not. My point is that there are any number of people in Dealey Plaza who were never identified and who could also be quite important. For example, what about the person (in the background of some of the later frames of the Z film, towards the end) who is holding up the sign which reads (I was told by the late Dick Sprague): JFK you SOB.

Is that a "fact"? In any event, whatever that sign reads, how in the world could the FBI have conducted its investigation and there be no paper trail as to (a) who is is and/or (b ) of any attempt to identify him?

Another point: based on the testimony of Witt, we now have two people who are "next to" someone who makes remarks, and who have never been identified:

(a) Witt, who testifies that the man next to him said "I believe someone shot them folks" (or some such thing)

(b ) Emmet Hudson, who testified that one of the men standing on the stairs next to him said; "Sit down mister, sit down. Someone is shooting the President" (from memory).

Finally, this point (re the pumping of the umbrella): if the Z film has been altered, what is now called the "pumping" of the umbrella may be exaggerated (or at least not an accurate representation) for the same reason that (if the Z film was altered) the backward "head snap" may be an artifact of film alteration. Just a thought.

DSL

I agree with most of what you wrote here, David. In my view, there is little reason to dismiss either TUM or the DCM under the circumstances. That the FBI did not successfully identify them is suspect. That is not to say that I have any "pet theory" which explains their presence or their actions that day. I do not. But, it seems quite a stretch to imagine that they were just casual innocent bystanders, (again) under the circumstances, especially when one considers their close proximity to the target coupled with 1) their actions during the event and 2) their subsequent reactions immediately following it.

I also agree with your comment regarding the exaggerated "head snap" probably being the result of alteration. As for the umbrella pumping, we have evidence of it from non Z-film STILL photographs. So, that would not be an artifact of Z-film alteration, IMO.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Greg Burnham

[Greg Parker]

3) That Oswald was not dyslexic (as is established by ample evidence) but rather, has Asperger's syndrome. Of course, the former is a reading disorder; the latter, related to autism.

A reading disability. Exactly. Now show where Oswald had any difficulty reading.

Oswald was diagnosed with a "personality pattern disturbance" while at YH by Dr Hartogs. Hans Asperger referred to the syndrome bearing his name as a "personality disorder".Research has since shown that because of crossover "symptoms" between personality disorders and AS, incorrect diagnosis is possible. And Hartogs did not have the option of diagnosing AS as it was not recognized in the US at that time.

Despite the battery of tests, apparent access to school records, and interviews with Oswald, one thing not diagnosed was dyslexia.

No response, David? How strange! You brought it up!

I have no idea why you think any of these ideas are particularly plausible, or backed by reasonable evidence; but hey, its a free country, and you're welcome. .

You're talking to someone in Australia on a UK website so I hope for the sake of accuracy you are referring to Australia or the UK and not the US.

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

Indeed, the United States leads the world in producing prisoners, a reflection of a relatively recent and now entirely distinctive American approach to crime and punishment. Americans are locked up for crimes — from writing bad checks to using drugs — that would rarely produce prison sentences in other countries. And in particular they are kept incarcerated far longer than prisoners in other nations. NYT 4/23/2008

No response, David? I guess you must have been referring to Australia or the UK in reference to being "free" and not the place that houses a quarter of the world's prisoners... a place where leaving water bottles for border crossers is considered littering and where littering itself is potentially an offence that can land you in prison as slave labor for corporations.

http://www.alternet....ights_activists

and now to add Steve Witt (and/or his "op") to your list.

My list of what? People of little interest to me, is about the only list I'd put him on. It is what others constitute as valid evidence and to what purpose they put it that interests me in all this. It just happened to be about Witt, but could have been about anyone. If Josiah Thompson considers third or fourth hand hearsay from unknown person or persons to be the Gold Standard in supporting evidence that Witt's story is so weird it "has to be true", then I think he needs to come and explain his rationale for that.

No response, David? You do not deny hearsay of unknown provenance really is the new Gold Standard in supporting evidence for the Lifton/Thompson/Morley troika?

Edited December 17, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

...Decades ago, I got to know Marina Porter, quite well, as a matter of fact....

DSL

This is most interesting - I didn't know this about your work, Mr. Lifton.

Robert Morrow tells me that you've compiled a lot of information about Lee Oswald - and I didn't know that about your work, either.

I would like to hear your views about a difference of opinion between myself and another researcher. I happen to believe, well, everything that Marina Oswald told the Warren Commission. After reviewing her testimony several times, I consistently come away impressed by her sincerity.

After all, she repeatedly said that the Warren Commission would not let her see all the evidence, and that Lee Oswald consistently withheld facts and basic truths from her, and without that evidence she was bluntly unsure of what to think. Still, based on the evidence she was allowed to see, it did appear that Oswald was (at least) one guilty party in the JFK assassination. I think that's an honest approach.

However, the person debating with me does not believe anything Marina said -- he thinks she lied about everything, especially the following:

1. That Marina took (at least one of) those pictures of Lee Oswald holding a rifle, a handgun and commie newspapers

2. That Lee Oswald gave George de Mohrenschildt one of those photographs marked, 'Hunter of fascists, ha ha,' and signed by Lee.

3. That Lee Oswald showed Marina his photos of General Walker's house which he had compiled into an assassination plan book

4. That Lee Oswald wrote a letter of instructions, telling Marina what to do in case Lee got arrested

5. That Lee Oswald confessed to her that he tried to shoot General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963

6. That four days later, George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt guessed that Lee was Walker's shooter, the last time they ever saw each other.

These six vital events in Lee Oswald's biography were sworn to be true by Marina Oswald (now Marina Porter), but are doubted by those who believe that the FBI and perhaps General Walker and others faked all those photographs, faked the letter, faked the Walker connection -- all to frame Oswald.

In my opinion, if Marina is tellling the truth, then these facts support my theory, namely, that Oswald's shooting at General Walker was the motivation suffered by Walker & Company in their decision to make Oswald their patsy.

What do you stand on these six points, Mr. Lifton? I'm most curious.

Best regards...