Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

If we can find our way back to the real issue, which is that Tink is abusing his position to debunk conspiracy theories,

I don't have a problem with Tink Thompson debunking conspiracy theories, I have a problem with Tink Thompson ignoring the basic physical facts of the case.

He smugly claims that there is an "innocent" explanation for every fact considered "sinister" but he habitually dismisses the clothing evidence/T3 back wound with no explanation at all, other than to mis-label it a "controversy."

Hey Tink! Turn you head to the right and glance down at your shirt along the right shoulder-line.

Then slowly raise your arm and wave to the crowd a la JFK in the motorcade.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT as your raise your arm.

Sorry for your debunked "cautionary tale," Tink, but indentation is the opposite of the multi-inch clothing bulge required by your "innocent explanation."

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bernice has astutely pointed out that the theory of a dart device, which Tink ridicules,

That's because he doesn't understand the basic facts of the case -- JFK was shot in the back at T3 and in the throat from the front.

Tink would rather spend News Years Eve getting a root canal than attempt a fact-based challenge to these conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

All the arguments Jim and I have advanced against Lifton's take apply equally to Cliff Varnel. The UM and the

Cuban were there TOGETHER. You cannot explain one of their actions independently of the other. I've given

amply photographic confirmation of this point. If you can't cope with it, then, at least, get out of the way!

I like the other points Cliff is making. But that's part and parcel of Tink's game plan. Ignore the evidence.

Yet there are many here who would rather stand by Tink even if he is taking the ship down. I am becoming

increasingly concerned that only a tiny percentage of those here have any idea what's going on before them.

What I most object to, however, is the certainty with which so many CTers seem to declare that Witt was the Umbrella Man.

Don, I'm allergic to witness bashing. I really am. Whenever I see a First Day Witness bashed or dismissed out of hand I get ticked. I think the First Day Witnesses of 11/22/63 at Dealey, Parkland and Bethesda are the unsung heroes of our lifetime.

I think Rosemary Willis is an excellent witness and her actions on the Zapruder film tell us a good deal about the shooting sequence.

Her testimony supports Witt, whose story doesn't strike me as "crazy" or "silly" at all.

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

Now does anyone in their right senses believe for one instant that in the middle of this celebratory crowd that had already gone on for blocks on end, with literally thousands of people cheering and smiling and waving, that in a flash, Kennedy would locate and center on this guy raising an umbrella? And then instantaneously connect that with Chamberlain, and then connect that with his father and realize this was a protest about what happened 25 years previous?

Jim hit the nail on the head and this is how I have always felt about the issue with Witt

Did he really think that JFK would see him with the Umbrella and connect that to his father and Chamberlain?

No way, thats ludicrous

Not only that the movements that Witt describe himself making that day in Dealey Plaza do not match what we see in the photos and film taken that day

Witt is NOT the Umbrella Man

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the arguments Jim and I have advanced against Lifton's take apply equally to Cliff Varnel. The UM and the Cuban were there TOGETHER. You cannot explain one of their actions independently of the other.

I respectfully disagree. There are two possibilities in regards to the role played by DCM: that this guy with what appears to be a radio in his back pocket was part of the assassination team, or DCM was part of Tosh Plumlee's "abort team." Plumlee said DCM appeared similar to an abort team member named "Gator."

I think DCM was startled by Louis Witt and sat down next to him to determine if he was a civilian or not. Once he determined that Witt was a nobody, DCM departed.

And Jim, don't take an "l" out of Varnell. B)

I like the other points Cliff is making. But that's part and parcel of Tink's game plan. Ignore the evidence. Yet there are many here who would rather stand by Tink even if he is taking the ship down. I am becoming increasingly concerned that only a tiny percentage of those here have any idea what's going on before them.

Jim, time will tell who is the more effective critic of Tink Thompson, you or I.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now does anyone in their right senses believe for one instant that in the middle of this celebratory crowd that had already gone on for blocks on end, with literally thousands of people cheering and smiling and waving, that in a flash, Kennedy would locate and center on this guy raising an umbrella? And then instantaneously connect that with Chamberlain, and then connect that with his father and realize this was a protest about what happened 25 years previous?

Jim hit the nail on the head and this is how I have always felt about the issue with Witt

Did he really think that JFK would see him with the Umbrella and connect that to his father and Chamberlain?

No way, thats ludicrous

Not only that the movements that Witt describe himself making that day in Dealey Plaza do not match what we see in the photos and film taken that day

Witt is NOT the Umbrella Man

Dean, his actions match what Rosemary Willis described.

Witt went to Dealey Plaza to have some fun. He wanted to mock JFK and his audience consisted of himself.

The bigger issues here are the likelihood JFK was struck with blood-soluble rounds, and Tink Thompson's debunked "cautionary tale."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now does anyone in their right senses believe for one instant that in the middle of this celebratory crowd that had already gone on for blocks on end, with literally thousands of people cheering and smiling and waving, that in a flash, Kennedy would locate and center on this guy raising an umbrella? And then instantaneously connect that with Chamberlain, and then connect that with his father and realize this was a protest about what happened 25 years previous?

Jim hit the nail on the head and this is how I have always felt about the issue with Witt

Did he really think that JFK would see him with the Umbrella and connect that to his father and Chamberlain?

No way, thats ludicrous

Not only that the movements that Witt describe himself making that day in Dealey Plaza do not match what we see in the photos and film taken that day

Witt is NOT the Umbrella Man

Dean, his actions match what Rosemary Willis described.

Witt went to Dealey Plaza to have some fun. He wanted to mock JFK and his audience consisted of himself.

The bigger issues here are the likelihood JFK was struck with blood-soluble rounds, and Tink Thompson's debunked "cautionary tale."

Who cares what Rosemary Willis described?

The photos do not match his actions!

I know that and you know that Cliff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Tink go on The NYT and participate in a film that had only one de facto outcome: to turn all people who have concluded that there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK into babies thrown out with more NYT evian bathwater?

He may well be coming out with a new book "proving" his version of a conspiracy. He knows it will never be reviewed in the NYT. He knows he will never be invited back with any of his pro-conspiracy views?

Why does he agree to roll such loaded dice, when they are only playing into the NYT and Corporate Media "One and Done" strategy?

By One and Done, I mean the new strategy of denial adopted by the NYT and The Nation, and other left-gatekeeping publications. Offer special denial fare to the educated middle class. Go into just one of millions of points of dispute, dismiss it as ridiculous, and then, KNOWING THAT THE TARGETED AUDIENCE PROBABLY IS NOT AWARE OF THE OTHER 999,000 facts of the case, use that disputed point to either 1) dismiss the whole assassination as loony tunes and low class knowledge [knowing that social status is often more important than proof] OR 2) allow that point to be the only one discussed and thus providing a note from a Tweedy Doctor for the educated middle class to ignore the whole vulgar test of the Assassination itself?

Why participate in a such a FOX film if one is an advocate of free range chickens?

You can later claim to discover the truth but what will it matter if you have here provided an excuse for tens of millions to avoid looking at it. The assassination is not merely a matter of truths discovered.

It is a matter of audience. Winnowed here, and in other places blown up for huge numbers only to be driven over a cliff. You could have dropped in a few facts for further reference perfessor. Like maybe cause a few people to read about C.D. Jackson, whose 18 hole sandtrap we have been left playing since 1963. You decided to participate in a film that was pure dismissal.

Why?

I ask this question without having read most of what Mr. Fetzer has written. To me this question stands entirely independent of the Fetzer Thomson dispute, of which I barely can follow anyways on account of posses frighten me.

Edited by Nathaniel Heidenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in burgundy

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

So?

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

So?

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

So?

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

I stand corrected. Appears Witt is a bit more eccentric than I thought. Big deal.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say?

It would depend on what the Cuban guy was up to. I don't think he was an innocent civilian walking around with what appears to be a military-style radio underneath his jacket. But I find Tosh Plumlee a credible individual, and his account of an abort mission makes historical sense to me. If the Cuban guy was Plumlee's "Gator" and he thought that Umbrella Man was part of the hit team -- it may very well have been his job to check the guy out.

Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

So?

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

So? He woke up that morning and decided to amuse himself by waving an umbrella at JFK for reasons only he, Witt, could appreciate. Big deal.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

So?

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

So?

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specifity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. THey had an agenda. ANd they achieved it.

Jim, I have no doubt you are correct in your critique of the HSCA. I agree that the Umbrella Man was used to distract from the fact that the CIA tested blood soluble flechettes on humans (as per Church Comm testimony), and that the autopsists the night of the autopsy openly speculated that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds.

The whole UM thing was, and continues to be, a huge distraction.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now does anyone in their right senses believe for one instant that in the middle of this celebratory crowd that had already gone on for blocks on end, with literally thousands of people cheering and smiling and waving, that in a flash, Kennedy would locate and center on this guy raising an umbrella? And then instantaneously connect that with Chamberlain, and then connect that with his father and realize this was a protest about what happened 25 years previous?

Jim hit the nail on the head and this is how I have always felt about the issue with Witt

Did he really think that JFK would see him with the Umbrella and connect that to his father and Chamberlain?

No way, thats ludicrous

Not only that the movements that Witt describe himself making that day in Dealey Plaza do not match what we see in the photos and film taken that day

Witt is NOT the Umbrella Man

Dean, his actions match what Rosemary Willis described.

Witt went to Dealey Plaza to have some fun. He wanted to mock JFK and his audience consisted of himself.

The bigger issues here are the likelihood JFK was struck with blood-soluble rounds, and Tink Thompson's debunked "cautionary tale."

Witt to the HSCA:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street), somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

Cliff,

Dean is correct in that Witt's description does not match any of the films or photo's.

Bronson, Willis and partial Z show the umbrella raised over his head.

If Willis is at approx Z202, and his photo shows the umbrella above his head, then at Z212, less than a second later, the umbrella in Z is rising and being rotated somewhat.

Once again, not enough time to accomplish what Witt has described.

Of course, that doesn't mean Rosemary is wrong in her description, either.

Perhaps Witt's action's described by RoseMary, occurred earlier than what we see in the photos and film.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Umbrella-2.gif

Also,

I'm not so sure about the description of the umbrella as either 8/10 spoked.

But, if you take what's shown in the extant Z in regards to the umbrella, flop it horizontally, rotate it 3 degrees CCW, and make it symmetrical, it appears to be 10 spokes.

http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r25/123steamn/Umbrella-3.png

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares what Rosemary Willis described?

I do. I think she's one of the best eye-witnesses in the case, and her entire family have told us as much about what happened as anyone who lives in Texas is going to tell.

The photos do not match his actions!

I know that and you know that Cliff

Dean, I phrased that poorly. I should say that Witt's descriptions of his actions match Willis' descriptions of his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this interview, Tink suggests that at the quantum level things appear to be

weird--or at least appear to behave weirdly--but at other "normal" levels [not

being examined too closely, i.e., not under the microscope] things appear to be

normal and appear to behave normally. Fine, but...

Nevertheless, the fallacy in his argument is obvious. Not only is the above

[quantum physics] an inadequate analogy, he misuses his own example! Why?

Because at a quantum level things do not merely appear to be weird/behave

weirdly (as he admits), but (what he leaves out) things actually appear to be

weird/behave weirdly because they ARE weird and they ARE behaving weirdly

when compared to what we think we know about how things work. So too does

special ops appear weird when compared to "what we think we know..."

To refer to Cutler and/or Sprague as "wing nuts" is fallacious on its face as it

is ad hominem. Cutler was a brilliant and honest investigator by all reports

that I have read. But, the insult to intelligence Tink offers us is magnified by

his wholly self-serving, cavalier, blanket dismissal of all but the evidence

that he "cherry picks" to cite, such as, the very late arrival of Witt, which is

"special pleading" at its finest! His reliance on belated testimony: citing a

somewhat obscure reference to Neville Chamberlain's appeasement policy--two

and a half decades AFTER the fact--is comical. Moreover, he said [paraphrased]:

"That's so weird it must be true."

So to which part of his explanation does the analogy to quantum physics apply?

Is the Umbrella Man, as an accomplice, "the weird part" that's analogous to the

weirdness of quantum physics? Or is it the part that he himself labeled "weird"

-- namely, the Witt/Chamberlain "umbrella protest" part?

Tink offers nothing of substance here. He's attempting to be a debunker's

debunker to be sure. Based on this interview, I don't think he has the

intellectual capacity to be a disinfo agent, though. Who'd hire him?

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Witt to the HSCA:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area (on the north side of Elm Street), somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down....(When the motorcade approached) I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street....Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing (the umbrella) in front of me....My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella's being open.

Cliff,

Dean is correct in that Witt's description does not match any of the films or photo's.

Bronson, Willis and partial Z show the umbrella raised over his head.

If Willis is at approx Z202, and his photo shows the umbrella above his head, then at Z212, less than a second later, the umbrella in Z is rising and being rotated somewhat.

Once again, not enough time to accomplish what Witt has described.

Chris, I'm not following your last point. He had the umbrella up in time to see Kennedy but why do we assume that he immediately made visual contact with the limo? He was pumping and twirling the umbrella, consistent with Rosemary Willis saying he seemed more concerned with the umbrella than shots ringing out.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks so much, Pat, for trying to help me out. I’m having a lot of trouble trying to figure out just where Earle Brown was at the time of the shooting. I’m beginning to think he may have been on the railroad overpass over the Stemmons Freeway and not looking down at Dealey Plaza at all. What do you think?

Let me tell you what I’m trying to run down.

I remember reading somewhere a report or interview of a DPD or sheriff’s officer (in fact, perhaps more than one) that they had run into the knoll/railroad area and encountered one or more railroad employees who said they had seen smoke at the time of the shooting in the area in front of the stockade fence. Obviously, this gives even more credibility to these reports if cops in the area say quite independently that railroad employees told them this on the site.

So that’s what I’m trying to run down.

I appreciate your willingness to help on this.

JT

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

Tink, one of the little-appreciated facts about the assassination is that one of those on the railroad bridge claiming he saw and/or smelled smoke WAS a Dallas Police Officer.

From patspeer.com, chapter 7:

Earle V. Brown was a Dallas police officer stationed on the south end of the railroad bridge. (12-23-63 FBI report on a 12-9-63 interview, CD205 p39) "He stated he heard the shots that killed President Kennedy, but did not see the shots take effect and stated he could not furnish any information which would assist in identifying the assassin. He advised that he believed he could smell gunpowder in the air on the overpass but believed it was probably brought there by the wind." (4-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H231-236) "the first I noticed the car was when it stopped...After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped." (When asked if it made a complete stop) "That I couldn't swear to." (When asked how many shots he heard) "Three." (When asked from where the shots came) "Well, they seemed high to me...It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas...School Book Depository." (7-15-64 signed statement to the Dallas Police Department, 22H600) "I heard the shots and they seemed like they were coming high from the direction of the book depository building. There was a terrific echo." (11-09-83 AP article found in the Indiana Gazette) "I was down there early at about 10 a.m. and I had this vision of a rifle sticking out of a window. It was very strange. Then I heard these shots," said Brown. "It was a premonition and it has always really shook me up when I think of it. It was like someone was trying to tell me something." About two hours later, Brown said, he heard shots and saw two or three puffs of white smoke wafting toward the bridge. The president, he said, was lying in his wife's lap as the car passed beneath him. "I still see that," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Well said, Martin!

Hmmm, no that last one was difficult to figure out..

--------------

One need not convert this into Soren Keirkegard's book Thompson/Fetzer. Whenever a polarity is drawn SO SHARPLY it protests too much and it is best to stay as far away from personalities as possible. Very likely there are key elements of truth in both and we are being set up with false opposites to fragment audiences. Such is the logic of disinformation, and I am not here suggesting that either Professor need be a conscious agent of disinformation for this to be the case.

Even if Prof. Fetzer never existed I just do not get how one can fail recognize Prof. Thompson's complicity in an exercise he must have known was designed as One More Exercise In Official Media's Dismissal of the JFK Assassination.

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...