Jump to content

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

[snipped. . . largely irrelevant. . . ]

You can believe--or not believe--what I was told, over 30 years ago, by the woman who had the same dentist as Witt. That's your choice. And no, I did not make up the story. I heard it directly from her. As I have made clear, I wish the HSCA had interviewed and obtained supporting affidavits, from those who knew Witt, whether it was his wife, fellow workers, etc. They did not do so, and they should have. However, what I think this episode demonstrates, more than anything else, is not that Witt was "put up to it," etc etc, but rather, that many people have difficulty giving up a cherished hypothesis. There are--apparently--a number of people "out there" who really do believe that Witt (and his umbrella) somehow were involved in a plot to murder President Kennedy; that he, and his umbrella, were involved in "signaling" that Kennedy "wasn't dead yet" and "calling" for more gunshots to be fired.

First of all, that idea is really silly. Anyone who knows anything about how a sniper works (in tandem with a spotter) would realize this is absurd; yet, in the world of "urban legend," it apparently still has some force. Second: focusing on this false idea draws attention away from the real problem: just how was such a function handled? Just who was in fact performing that function? Because of one thing we can all be certain: this was a very professionally handled shooting,and it was over within just a very few seconds. So someone was performing that function--and in fact, when it was over, Jacqueline Kennedy actually heard a third party shout: "He's dead! He's dead!" And then the car sped off.

Enough said.

Now, about you, Mr. Dunne, and your unremitting hostility towards me, and my work, which can be found in your posts, all over this forum (and elsewhere as well):

When are you going to post a picture of yourself—one that is visible, and not deliberately darkened—as part of your profile?

Perhaps the time has come, for those on this forum, to know a little about you—and since I have had to tangle with you in other venues going back a decade or more, here goes:

1) You are a music producer who lives in London, Ontario

2) You used to post on alt.conspiracy (aka, “the nuthouse”) under the fictional name “BishopM”—a reflection on your focus on David Atlee Phillips (and the alias you suspect he used);

3) As you admitted to an associate of mine—back in the days when I was curious as to who you were, and whom you apparently did not realize was a good friend --BishopM was you alias, your “Alex Hidell. Further, as you explained, you employed that alias in order to adopt a very different, and particularly hostile and aggressively obnoxious persona, on the Internet.

4) You could not then—and perhaps still can not—enter the United States, because of certain, er, legal problems.

5) You were a close associate of John Armstrong, and in fact played a role in editing his manuscript (subsequently published as Harvey and Lee).

Hopefully, enough time has passed—since the days you posted as “BishopM”—that you have mellowed; and perhaps your legal problems have diminished. Perhaps you can even enter the United States today.

Finally, perhaps the time has come where you can post a visible picture of yourself, instead of hiding in the shadows. I don't agree with much of what you have to say, and am turned off by your extreme and very toxic hostility, but perhaps you can at least post a photo of yourself that is visible.

C'mon Mr. RCD--please let us see who you really are.

DSL

12/14/11; 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

If you look at this with a clear head, David, I think you'll see you've gone too far and that you owe Robert an apology. His legal problems--real or not--have nothing to do with this thread, and don't really belong here, and your bringing them up only serves to support his claim you are a bully.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pat:

I hate to say it but this sounds like something that Roger Feinman once kidded Bob Artwohl about: You cannot expect private citizens to do what professional investigators should have done. But did not.

The HSCA not only had its own fleet of private investigators, it also had the FBI.

With that at their disposal did they cross check Witt's incredible story?

No they did not.

They even accepted as fact that he still had the same umbrella. When, as Cutler showed, it was not the same umbrella.

If you read the interview, no one even notes to him that it was odd for him to just sit there while everyone else was running around looking for snipers.

The man was coddled, period. Even though his behavior and his story was very provocative. And this is why so many people were so disappointed with Blakey.

I agree that Witt was coddled and that his testimony was served up as "light" entertainment by the HSCA. I agree as well that the HSCA should have done more than interview him once and drag him before the cameras.

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..."

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

[snipped. . . largely irrelevant. . . ]

You can believe--or not believe--what I was told, over 30 years ago, by the woman who had the same dentist as Witt. That's your choice. And no, I did not make up the story. I heard it directly from her. As I have made clear, I wish the HSCA had interviewed and obtained supporting affidavits, from those who knew Witt, whether it was his wife, fellow workers, etc. They did not do so, and they should have. However, what I think this episode demonstrates, more than anything else, is not that Witt was "put up to it," etc etc, but rather, that many people have difficulty giving up a cherished hypothesis. There are--apparently--a number of people "out there" who really do believe that Witt (and his umbrella) somehow were involved in a plot to murder President Kennedy; that he, and his umbrella, were involved in "signaling" that Kennedy "wasn't dead yet" and "calling" for more gunshots to be fired.

First of all, that idea is really silly. Anyone who knows anything about how a sniper works (in tandem with a spotter) would realize this is absurd; yet, in the world of "urban legend," it apparently still has some force. Second: focusing on this false idea draws attention away from the real problem: just how was such a function handled? Just who was in fact performing that function? Because of one thing we can all be certain: this was a very professionally handled shooting,and it was over within just a very few seconds. So someone was performing that function--and in fact, when it was over, Jacqueline Kennedy actually heard a third party shout: "He's dead! He's dead!" And then the car sped off.

Enough said.

Now, about you, Mr. Dunne, and your unremitting hostility towards me, and my work, which can be found in your posts, all over this forum (and elsewhere as well):

When are you going to post a picture of yourself—one that is visible, and not deliberately darkened—as part of your profile?

Perhaps the time has come, for those on this forum, to know a little about you—and since I have had to tangle with you in other venues going back a decade or more, here goes:

1) You are a music producer who lives in London, Ontario

2) You used to post on alt.conspiracy (aka, "the nuthouse") under the fictional name "BishopM"—a reflection on your focus on David Atlee Phillips (and the alias you suspect he used);

3) As you admitted to an associate of mine—back in the days when I was curious as to who you were, and whom you apparently did not realize was a good friend --BishopM was you alias, your "Alex Hidell. Further, as you explained, you employed that alias in order to adopt a very different, and particularly hostile and aggressively obnoxious persona, on the Internet.

4) You could not then—and perhaps still can not—enter the United States, because of certain, er, legal problems.

5) You were a close associate of John Armstrong, and in fact played a role in editing his manuscript (subsequently published as Harvey and Lee).

Hopefully, enough time has passed—since the days you posted as "BishopM"—that you have mellowed; and perhaps your legal problems have diminished. Perhaps you can even enter the United States today.

Finally, perhaps the time has come where you can post a visible picture of yourself, instead of hiding in the shadows. I don't agree with much of what you have to say, and am turned off by your extreme and very toxic hostility, but perhaps you can at least post a photo of yourself that is visible.

C'mon Mr. RCD--please let us see who you really are.

DSL

12/14/11; 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

"You can believe me or not believe me yadda yadda."

Why are you and Pat having such difficulty with this? It has been spelled out now several times, but heck - let's try again - in a form you seem to favor.

1. No one cares that you didn't interview Witt.

2. It's not about believing you or not believing you.

3. It's not even about you at all.

4. It's about the use of hearsay from unknown sources by someone of great influence addressing a mass audience and presenting this very weak hearsay as a key factor in why everyone should believe Witt was TUM.

Here are the unadulterated facts:

1. TUMs actions do appear to be suspicious since they are so at odds with the actions and reactions of others.

2. Witt testified that he was unaware for 15 years that he was an object of interest. He became aware when he saw the drawing in the Dallas papers issued by the HSCA - but he did not come forward (he claimed) because "I did not want anybody to know who I was."

3. Despite not knowing prior to the release of his likeness to the press, and not wanting anyone to know AFTER he became cognizant he was the man, we are nevertheless expected to believe that, after the media blitz, Witt blabbed to coworkers he was TUM, and that either PRIOR to the media blitz or shortly thereafter, he told to his dentist the same thing - and in doing all this blabbing, all but ensured that which he claimed he dreaded (becoming "known") would in fact happen.

4. During his testimony, Witt stated coworkers had told him that heckling the Kennedys with an umbrella was a sore point with them - and that it related back to Papa Joe's alignment with Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler. He further stated that (he had been told) JFK had been heckled with an umbrella in a city in Arizona.

5. If the story has any currency, Witt's motivation was simply to irritate JFK with this real or imaginary "sore point" and had nothing whatsoever to do directly with Joe's appeasement of Hitler or JFK's alleged appeasement of Communism - it was simply an attempt to get under JFK's skin.

6. On the plus side, Chamberlain was known himself as "The Umbrella Man".

7. Again on the plus side, during the race for the nomination, LBJ had made an umbrella / Chamberlain reference against his opponent.

8. On the debit side, extensive searching has yielded no evidence of any umbrella wielding incident in Arizona (or elsewhere) - nor any evidence that JFK or his family were intimidated, upset, or angered by umbrella protests or references.

That you and Pat continue to try and make this about whether anyone believes, or does not believe the dentist story is shameful - but at least Pat does draw the line at some of your other diversions.

As for Robert's posting history in other forums.. his jousts with "Jerry" were that rare combination of informative and humorously entertaining and remain among the best reads anywhere on the net. That was my opinion then as a "newbie" and before I knew who bishopm was, and remains my opinion now. Categorizing those posts as "hostile and aggressively obnoxious" is surely not the assessment of a disinterested observer, nor of a rational thinker.

"Alleging something was a 'fairy tale' is not evidence." DSL post #50 this thread.

Bottom line - neither is 3rd or 4th hand hearsay from unknown sources. And that's it. That is all it has been about from my perspective.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can believe--or not believe--what I was told, over 30 years ago, by the woman who had the same dentist as Witt. That's your choice. And no, I did not make up the story. I heard it directly from her. As I have made clear, I wish the HSCA had interviewed and obtained supporting affidavits, from those who knew Witt, whether it was his wife, fellow workers, etc. They did not do so, and they should have. However, what I think this episode demonstrates, more than anything else, is not that Witt was "put up to it," etc etc, but rather, that many people have difficulty giving up a cherished hypothesis. There are--apparently--a number of people "out there" who really do believe that Witt (and his umbrella) somehow were involved in a plot to murder President Kennedy; that he, and his umbrella, were involved in "signaling" that Kennedy "wasn't dead yet" and "calling" for more gunshots to be fired.

First of all, that idea is really silly. Anyone who knows anything about how a sniper works (in tandem with a spotter) would realize this is absurd; yet, in the world of "urban legend," it apparently still has some force. Second: focusing on this false idea draws attention away from the real problem: just how was such a function handled? Just who was in fact performing that function? Because of one thing we can all be certain: this was a very professionally handled shooting,and it was over within just a very few seconds. So someone was performing that function--and in fact, when it was over, Jacqueline Kennedy actually heard a third party shout: "He's dead! He's dead!" And then the car sped off.

Enough said.

Now, about you, Mr. Dunne, and your unremitting hostility towards me, and my work, which can be found in your posts, all over this forum (and elsewhere as well):

When are you going to post a picture of yourself—one that is visible, and not deliberately darkened—as part of your profile?

Perhaps the time has come, for those on this forum, to know a little about you—and since I have had to tangle with you in other venues going back a decade or more, here goes:

1) You are a music producer who lives in London, Ontario

2) You used to post on alt.conspiracy (aka, “the nuthouse”) under the fictional name “BishopM”—a reflection on your focus on David Atlee Phillips (and the alias you suspect he used);

3) As you admitted to an associate of mine—back in the days when I was curious as to who you were, and whom you apparently did not realize was a good friend --BishopM was you alias, your “Alex Hidell. Further, as you explained, you employed that alias in order to adopt a very different, and particularly hostile and aggressively obnoxious persona, on the Internet.

4) You could not then—and perhaps still can not—enter the United States, because of certain, er, legal problems.

5) You were a close associate of John Armstrong, and in fact played a role in editing his manuscript (subsequently published as Harvey and Lee).

Hopefully, enough time has passed—since the days you posted as “BishopM”—that you have mellowed; and perhaps your legal problems have diminished. Perhaps you can even enter the United States today.

Finally, perhaps the time has come where you can post a visible picture of yourself, instead of hiding in the shadows. I don't agree with much of what you have to say, and am turned off by your extreme and very toxic hostility, but perhaps you can at least post a photo of yourself that is visible.

C'mon Mr. RCD--please let us see who you really are.

DSL

12/14/11; 6:45 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

As I specifically stated, but which you deliberately snipped as “irrelevant,” I didn’t and don’t question your honesty regarding this story. But making claims in the absence of evidence to believe them is futile. Why this bothers you so much is anyone’s guess, but surely you must at least remember the name of the woman who told you the tale? Is there some reason why even that name cannot be shared? Or is the HSCA’s failure to locate and procure affidavits from Witt’s acquaintances to blame for your inability to recall her name? If not, why mention their failures when it is your own that are the issue here.

Also deemed “irrelevant” by you and consequently snipped by you was something I will now re-post for the benefit of those who may have missed it the first time around, and are denied it in your response as a result of your self-serving censorship:

“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.”

Which segues brilliantly with your decision at this point to post your unflattering depiction of me. When pressed for evidence you do not have, you go on the attack. You are nothing if not entirely predictable. Perhaps if you can blacken me enough, people might actually forget that you’ve been asked a number of times by several members to post any details regarding your Witt story, to no avail. Evidence is the very thing that you would rightly demand of others, but requiring the same of you is something you deem unfair to you. It has come time for you to either put up or shut up. Which will it be?

I appreciate your ardent desire, which you share with Ray Carroll, to see my face clearly, but I don’t really see the point. What I say is either true or not, irrespective of whether I am blonde, brunette or redhaired. I cannot fathom how my comments would differ in any way by how I look. Other than give you an opportunity to mock my appearance, as you have repeatedly done with people whose hair you think too long or whose taste in Grateful Dead T-shirts you think disqualifies them from comment. That only a fool would judge a person’s comments by their appearance hasn’t stopped you from doing precisely that repeatedly in the past. (Luckily, I don’t wear T-shirts.)

The vast majority of your profile of me is - surprise! - completely erroneous. As just one example, I am not a “close associate” of John Armstrong, have never met the man and haven’t read “Harvey & Lee.” I was asked by JA’s point-man Jim Hargrove to critique an early portion (the first chapter or two, if I recall) of the book, did so, was unpersuaded by it, said so in my written responses, and was thereafter left out of the loop. I had hoped to at least receive a copy of the finished work for my efforts, but did not. There you have the sum total of that uneventful episode, from which I have somehow morphed into Armstrong’s “close associate.”

Your obsession with Armstrong must be quite debilitating, for in this thread alone you have accused both Greg Parker and me of being Armstrong's acolytes, when precisely the opposite is true. Greg has been outrightly hostile toward Armstrong's methodology, whereas I am simply unpersuaded by his premise. How is it that you so often self-defeatingly end up with the wrong ass-end of an argument? Most of your other comments about me are equally spurious: a dash of truth covered in a heaping helping of malarkey; or just outright malarkey of your own hallucination.

Prior to joining here, I posted at the late Rich D.’s forum, where I don’t recall crossing your path. I’ve made no secret that I find your book unpersuasive, but I have no special animus toward it, precisely as I felt about Armstrong's. As is true of even the most unremarkable books, yours contains some valuable information, even if I don’t concur with its central premise.

Whatever accolades you earned from that book, however, you've long since frittered away in threads such as this one. You've coronated yourself to be singularly capable of dismissing something as open-to-interpretation as the Witt episode. When asked for evidence, you basically replied: "Evidence? I don't need no stinkin' "evidence." I heard a third hand story and that's good enough for me." That you cannot even comprehend how this lowers your stature yet further indicates the extent that you are divorced from reality.

You have, however, just demonstrated the veracity of several of my points for me. For example, Pat Speer seems to think you've just demonstrated your tendencies to bully rather than reason, which I have previously noted here, and on this score I see no point in disagreeing with him. It is only the most recent example of your essential nastiness destroying your facade as a researcher. Each time you indulge in such underhandedness, you unmask yourself a little bit more and what we are left to see is behaviour that repulses rather than attracts. With a friend like you, you don't need enemies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Charles-Dunne said re Lifton:

You have, however, just demonstrated the veracity of several of my points for me. For example, Pat Speer seems to think you've just demonstrated your tendencies to bully rather than reason, which I have previously noted here, and on this score I see no point in disagreeing with him. It is only the most recent example of your essential nastiness destroying your facade as a researcher. Each time you indulge in such underhandedness, you unmask yourself a little bit more and what we are left to see is behaviour that repulses rather than attracts. With a friend like you, you don't need enemies.

It is unfortunate that the valuable research Lifton has done is undermined by his apparent ongoing lack of respect for other researchers. Nevertheless, perhaps it is time to accept him as he is and focus on the issues. Perhaps a new paradigm can be constructed in the CT community; something that leaves behind the division that is so last-century. Maybe there are things we can agree on as we move forward?

Edited by Pamela Brown
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Witt was coddled and that his testimony was served up as "light" entertainment by the HSCA. I agree as well that the HSCA should have done more than interview him once and drag him before the cameras.

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..."

Pat, something to consider:

The entire Witt episode was treated by HSCA as though the only possible role Witt could have played was the flechette-firing assassin. All involved had a barrel of laughs demolishing a theory they treated as stupid from the outset, and regarded as the only issue that needed debunking. Mission accomplished; case closed.

Any researcher going near the Witt story thereafter was inviting nuclear-proportion disdain from any and all comers. I don’t blame others for not pursuing it, because to do so would have earned one all the lunatic “fringe” epithets that have been commonly used to keep the curious away from aspects of this case, as remains the case today, even in this very thread.

I think it wrong to say ALL researchers accepted the Witt story because it had been decisively and genuinely settled, though it may have been true for some. I think many saw the humiliation that was served up to Cutler and steered well clear of the Witt tale for fear of being likewise burned at the stake. Conjuring up and destroying a strawman argument doesn't dispose of all arguments. But it makes people highly wary of coming within spitting distance of the strawman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Robert, you may have added what Stokes said once they opened the umbrella.

It was words to the effect, don't open it up towards me.

This fortifies the point that they were taking the flechette firing aspect foremost, and using it to ridicule the critics.

In fact, that day, right after, Blakey went on to ridicule the mysterious deaths aspect of the case.

As Jerry Policoff wrote, after the critics' conference, Blakey gave a staffer that job: to screen the critical iterature and find holes in it.

Meanwhile, Blakey backed the most farcical idea of all: Trafficante and Marcello hired a guy who was a joke on the firing line in the Marines, outfitted him with a manual bolt action rifle, and told him to kill the president.

Yeah, sure Bob.

Blakey was fooled by CIA-Ossi handler Johannides and pseudo Cter Mack. Witt played his role very well.

Fact is: the neck entrance wound below the adams apple was NOT an ordinary bullet entry wound. To small. 3 to 5 mm in diameter...maybe it was DCM maybe it was umbrella man...Witt or not Witt, I just say: I don't give a dam babe.

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is: the neck entrance wound below the adams apple was NOT an ordinary bullet entry wound. To small. 3 to 5 mm in diameter...

Exactly! And look at the damage shown on the neck x-ray -- bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the T1 transverse process, and a subcutaneous air pocket overlaying C7 and T1.

No exit.

What kind of conventional round would only strike soft tissue and yet not exit?

And this is a military style ambush?

And what about the second shot -- hit just to the right of the spine at T3. Shallow wound, did not exit.

So in the first two shots neither of them were kill shots? What kind of "military style ambush" was that??

Doesn't add up...unless the first shot was a paralytic and the second shot a toxin. And as the autopsists suspected the night of the autopsy, the rounds may very well have dissolved.

The back shot may very well have been the kill shot, and the head shots were for show, the beginning of the cover-up.

maybe it was DCM maybe it was umbrella man...Witt or not Witt, I just say: I don't give a dam babe.

KK

Or Black Dog Man or someone behind the picket fence directly behind BDM.

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.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back shot may very well have been the kill shot, and the head shots were for show, the beginning of the cover-up.

Really? The assassination team PLANNED to hit Kennedy in the head TWICE (an incredibly difficult feat), not to kill him, but to cover-up that he'd actually been killed by some super secret dart weapon?

People say the darnedest things...

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The back shot may very well have been the kill shot, and the head shots were for show, the beginning of the cover-up.

Really? The assassination team PLANNED to hit Kennedy in the head TWICE (an incredibly difficult feat), not to kill him, but to cover-up that he'd actually been killed by some super secret dart weapon?

1) Triangulation of fire -- three shots to the head. Not that we can ever know for sure given the possibility of pre-autopsy surgery to the head.

2) Three shots to the head would certainly kill the guy but just in case those shots missed JFK was a dead man, regardless. First shot paralytic, second shot kill shot.

Please trot out your pet theories on the subject of the back/throat wounds Pat, and we'll see who can best defend his position.

3) Since there was a weapons program tested by the CIA and the US Army Special Forces that used blood-soluble rounds to deliver paralytics and toxins it certainly makes sense, in the case of a military style ambush, to employ the latest in military ordnance.

And given the plotters' natural desire to avoid detection they needed to hit JFK with more than two rounds that caused minor damage.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/flechette.txt

4) Pat, recall why FBI SA James Sibert placed a call to the FBI Lab the night of the autopsy. Because the autopsists wanted to know if there was such weaponry as bullets that dissolved after contact in the body.

5) The blood soluble flechette scenario finds powerful corroboration in the neck x-ray, which show nothing but minor soft tissue damage -- bruised lung tip, hairline fracture of the T1 right transverse process, and an air pocket.

6) This scenario finds powerful corroboration the in Z-film, which shows JFK seizing up paralyzed in about two seconds after getting shot in the throat circa Z190.

People say the darnedest things...

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.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

croftlight.jpg

study1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

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...