Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Cliff Varnell]

1.) In TInk's SSD on pages 47-51, he goes over the location of the back wound in detail.

He does not call it a controversy,

Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas,pgs 49-50, emphasis added:

What are we to make of all this evidence concerning the location and character of the President's back wound?

The exact location of the wound cannot now be conclusively determined. If it turns out to be located where Commander Boswell placed it on the face sheet, the throat wound will be ruled out as a consequence of the first shot. But even if the autopsy photos show a location somewhat higher, the issue will not yet be decided in the Commission's favor.

To the best of my knowledge Tink Thompson regards the issue of the back wound location as unsettled.

In which case we are to believe that:

1) Multiple inches of JFK's clothing bunched up above the high back wound location even though JFK's posture caused his shirt fabric to INDENT along his right shoulder-line.

2) More than a dozen witnesses to the T3 back wound all suffered nearly identical mis-perceptions.

3) Improperly prepared autopsy evidence (autopsy photos) trump properly prepared medical material (autopsy face sheet, Burkley death certificate.)

What a crock.

he says that the evidence points toward a lower location than the throat wound and a non -transiting wound.

ANd he uses familiar witnesses like Hill and Bennett and the autopsy face sheet, which he shows and the shirt and jacket which he also shows.

So, let us be fair with the record. SSD is a good book considering its time frame. I don't agree with all that is in it. But on this point, it seems to me that Tink was treating the evidence fairly about the back wound.

I respectfully disagree. That's what is infuriating about SSID -- Tink makes a great case for conspiracy and then casts it into doubt.

And that bit about a fragment from the head shot exiting the throat?

Unbelievable!

The Zapruder film and several witnesses depict JFK reacting to throat trauma well before the head shot.

And how does the low back wound preclude the throat shot coming first? That's a non sequitur.

Color me unimpressed.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[J. Raymond Carroll]

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.

Greetings Josiah:

you have probably already checked this out,

but a Nobel laureate agrees.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=45832

[Thomas Graves]

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

[...]

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

[...}

Jim,

I agree with you that his admitting that he didn't look at the picket fence is strange and, frankly, hard to believe.

Regardless, I don't think TUM sat on the curb for up to three minutes, unless forty-five seconds or so is considered "up to three minutes".

--Tommy

Edited November 25, 2011 by Thomas Graves

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Cliff,

You are revealing his MO. Vince Salandria was floored when, in the final paragraph of his book, Tink disavowed that any of the evidence he had presented proved the existence of a conspiracy. So even when we look at the evidence, we are left in a state of uncertainty. Compare what I have had to say about this wound, "Reasoning about Assassinations", where it is entirely obvious that WE KNOW WHERE THE BACK WOUND HIT, which means that, since it did not pass through his neck and exit his throat, we have to attribute the throat wound and those in Connally to separate shots by separate shooters--which ALREADY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF A CONSPIRACY. Remember what Marty Shotz observed in HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US: the objective of disinformation is not to convince you one way or the other but to create enough uncertainty that EVERYTHING IS BELIEVABLE AND NOTHING IS KNOWABLE. This man, Josiah Thompson, has proven himself to be a master of sowing doubt about JFK. There are obvious reasons why Tink is being featured in The New York Times.

Jim

1.) In TInk's SSD on pages 47-51, he goes over the location of the back wound in detail.

He does not call it a controversy,

Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas,pgs 49-50, emphasis added:

What are we to make of all this evidence concerning the location and character of the President's back wound?

The exact location of the wound cannot now be conclusively determined. If it turns out to be located where Commander Boswell placed it on the face sheet, the throat wound will be ruled out as a consequence of the first shot. But even if the autopsy photos show a location somewhat higher, the issue will not yet be decided in the Commission's favor.

To the best of my knowledge Tink Thompson regards the issue of the back wound location as unsettled.

In which case we are to believe that:

1) Multiple inches of JFK's clothing bunched up above the high back wound location even though JFK's posture caused his shirt fabric to INDENT along his right shoulder-line.

2) More than a dozen witnesses to the T3 back wound all suffered nearly identical mis-perceptions.

3) Improperly prepared autopsy evidence (autopsy photos) trump properly prepared medical material (autopsy face sheet, Burkley death certificate.)

What a crock.

he says that the evidence points toward a lower location than the throat wound and a non -transiting wound.

ANd he uses familiar witnesses like Hill and Bennett and the autopsy face sheet, which he shows and the shirt and jacket which he also shows.

So, let us be fair with the record. SSD is a good book considering its time frame. I don't agree with all that is in it. But on this point, it seems to me that Tink was treating the evidence fairly about the back wound.

I respectfully disagree. That's what is infuriating about SSID -- Tink makes a great case for conspiracy and then casts it into doubt.

And that bit about a fragment from the head shot exiting the throat?

Unbelievable!

The Zapruder film and several witnesses depict JFK reacting to throat trauma well before the head shot.

And how does the low back wound preclude the throat shot coming first? That's a non sequitur.

Color me unimpressed.

Edited November 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The man is obviously an imposter, but apparently good enough to take in David Lifton. He was being vague in

order not to be caught dissembling at the time, but what you are reporting here disposes of the question. And if

the Dealey Plaza umbrella has 10 spokes, the umbrella brought into the HSCA appears to have 12. Which means

that it is not the same umbrella and that Witt is obviously a fraud. Yet Tink Thompson is promoting this rubbish?

P.S. Jack told me that Robert Cutler had done studies of all of this some time back. Could someone repost it here?

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

Edited November 25, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Bernice Moore]

I Have not found the page re the Secret Service rules in motorcades, i have gone through every folder of ss info now, sorry bout that as i do know it did exist, but i have found that apparently Clint Hill was observed by another agent, as eyeing the umbrella man, that is the only mention found, that any of the ss agents regarded the man with an umbrella as being needed to be watched closely during a motorcade, as were men with an over coat, rain coat over their arm, or a cane, which says to me, that the SS were aware that the flechette weapons were available during that time, as they were fired from a gun,umbrella or cane, which were what they were to look out for, so Hill ignored the actions of the umbrella man in raising pumping the umbrella up and down, he was somewhat interested but did not act or move till after he thought he saw jfk slump somewhat and heard a richochet, the lastest ss rule book available on the web is 2002, which is of no use to us now....

Message body

OVERPASSES (AND THE UMBRELLA MAN)-DISTRACTIONS?: From Vince Palamara's the W/C gems....

21 H 564:

DPD Asst. Chief Charles Batchelor---"He [Lawson of the SECRET SERVICE] also stated that we should have men on each railroad and traffic overpass that the presidential party would go under, and that these people should be instructed NOT TO LET ANYONE STAND OVER THE IMMEDIATE PATH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARTY." [emphasisi added---not adhered to in Dealey Plaza!]; 4 H 327: Secret Service agent Winston G. Lawson himself testifies that "any citizen", no exceptions, were to be kept off overpasses. In fact, 4 H 351: Lawson testified: "I recall thinking we were coming to an overpass now, so I glanced up to see if it was clear, the way most of them had been, THE WAY ALL OF THEM HAD BEEN UP UNTIL THAT TIME ON THE WAY DOWNTOWN, AND IT WAS NOT...And I was looking for the officer WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO BE THERE...and I made a kind of motion through the windshield trying to get his attention to move the people from over our path THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...we were just approaching this overpass when I heard a shot." [emphasis added---was this a visual distraction, as the umbrella man was? In the new Z-film video---the sprocket area---Secret Service agent Clint Hill, in particular, is seemingly transfixed on the umbrella man DURING the initial shooting!]; 2 H 119:

In regards to the video, imo fwiw, i do think Dr.Thompson has done the community a diservice in joining in the latest New York Times continuing effort to smear, guffaw whatever word you want to choose, the CT Community,of which they are well known through the years in doing so at any given opportunity, of which up until now, i believe though there may have been some with previous doubts perhaps of his alliance, it was almost without question, i do think he has hurt his own reputation within said community, more by his actions and comments on the video, than he has hurt the Community, though he has been represented by his book SSID in the past as being a positive CTr , he is after all only one.and will remain so, and the community is a village and not just represented by any one person and has never been, i do not believe that those within that have studied the assassination and have to some degree a knowledge on the subject will be fooled or not for long, by any as they have not been by such as Gary Mack who has tried, playing both sides against the middle, and been tripped up repeatedly during his involvements in L/N documentarys of the past..I personally think that any researcher who would join in with the said NYT would be regarded also in similar fashion, the only time such as the NYT will welcome any well known CTr, or otherwise, is to at least trip him up if possible, and heap some type of scorn on all within, such as the ''wing nut accusation''....but it happened, and with the Drs participation, i was and am very surprised at his unsettling appearance.......imo just one of the community..b....it is like the old saying if you lay down with fleas.......they get you...

Edited November 26, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

While we are addressing David Lifton's demonstrated incompetence,

I want to explain more of the evidence that supports my belief (now

temporarily suspended) that a missile may have hit the Pentagon. In

the first of these frames released by the Department of Defense, we

see the image of what they have conveniently labeled "plane", which

is located just above the gate mechanism in this interesting photo:

Now pilots and aeronautical engineers explained to me that the

while plume emanating from this plane could not be the exhaust

of jet engines, which would be black, but could be the trail of a

missile being fired into the building, probably to take out those

budget analysts and accountants attempting to track that $2.3

trillion Rumsfeld announced was missing from the DOD budget.

So I asked Jack to scale the image of a Boeing 757 to the tail in

this image, which he did exquisitely, thereby proving that even

the Pentagon's own evidence contradicts the "official account"

that a Boeing 757 had hit the building. So when David Lifton

displays his massive arrogance in attacking me for research on

9/11--about which he is massively ignorant!--bear in mind that

we have now discovered he can make blunders even about JFK!

P.S. My present concerns relate to the authenticity of these 4

photos, since, when that part of the building was excavated,

there were no indications of any damage of the kind that a

massive fireball would have caused. So while what Jack and

I have done disproves the official account (see "20 reasons

the 'official account' of 9/11 is wrong"), I cannot claim that

a missile actually hit the building if these photos were faked.

Edited November 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Greg Burnham]

P.S. Jack told me that Robert Cutler had done studies of all of this some time back. Could someone repost it here?

Jim,

Much of Cutler's work was consistent with (and sometimes based upon) the reportage of Fletcher Prouty.

THE UMBRELLA SYTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague & Robert Cutler

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, I really don't know what to make of your multiple "Sos" above. I mean do you always dismiss inexplicable behavior and motivation when it is involved with a murder case?

I don't find Witt's behavior or motivation "inexplicable" and your inability to answer my "so?" questions underscores the weakness of your case against him.

I mean that is not being a good and skeptical detective, is it?

Such a detective must weigh corroborative accounts. I find Rosemary Willis' account to jibe with Witt's.

I mean to swallow whole a story that improbable, with such questionable motivation, with such accidental timing, I mean please.

I don't find the story improbable, I don't find his motivations questionable, and his accidental timing is consistent with the whimsy this man displayed with his umbrella.

He was out there to amuse himself.

Witt is obviously trying to imply that if that is him--sometimes he sounds confused--well it was just an accident I was there, So?I did not even really know where I was going So?, and I was not exactly sure where the parade route was.So? On top of that, I have never done that type of thing before and I do not belong to any rightwing groups.So? I was not referring to JFK either, but only his father.So? ANd the CUban looking guy next to me, he said only, "Hey those people got shot up huh?"

And with that last bit you're dismissing the possibility out of hand that The Cuban Guy was baffled by Witt and felt the need to check him out.

What this does of course is make him a cleaned off specimen. Somehow he landed on earth the day of the motorcade, wandered around Dallas, heard there was a motorcade, and decided to do something that was completely nonsensical and meaningless, so much so that no one understood it.

So because Witt is eccentric he deserves to be hung in the court of public opinion?

Still doesn't change the fact that Rosemary Willis described him as more interested in handling the umbrella than anything else, consistent with Witt's own testimony.

[Cliff Varnell]

If nothing about that strikes you as odd, then if I die under suspicious circumstances, please don't investigate my case.

I would have been all over this guy like a new suit.

I think that's exactly what the Cuban guy felt. Witt's behavior was eccentric and DCM was all over him like a new suit.

[Cliff Varnell]

There also should have been a serious hunt for the Cuban looking guy. Or was he another cleaned off specimen who just happened to be there because he wanted to raise his arm in the air as a FU sign to Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs?

I think I've explained my take on the Cuban guy sufficiently.

You think the HSCA should have gone after Louis Witt -- I think they should have gone after Mitchell WerBell III and Sidney Gottlieb.

I guess we just have different approaches to the case, Jim.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

You have put it very well in your concluding paragraph. Some of those here may

want to contemplate what is coming. This is the first six-minute installment of

what appears to be six hours of Tink. So we could have fifty-nine more coming,

which will be one of the monumental disinformation campaigns ever by the CIA.

Jim

I Have not found the page re the Secret Service rules in motorcades, i have gone through every folder of ss info now, sorry bout that as i do know it did exist, but i have found that apparently Clint Hill was observed by another agent, as eyeing the umbrella man, that is the only mention found, that any of the ss agents regarded the man with an umbrella as being needed to be watched closely during a motorcade, as were men with an over coat, rain coat over their arm, or a cane, which says to me, that the SS were aware that the flechette weapons were available during that time, as they were fired from a gun,umbrella or cane, which were what they were to look out for, so Hill ignored the actions of the umbrella man in raising pumping the umbrella up and down, he was somewhat interested but did not act or move till after he thought he saw jfk slump somewhat and heard a richochet, the lastest ss rule book available on the web is 2002, which is of no use to us now....

Message body

OVERPASSES (AND THE UMBRELLA MAN)-DISTRACTIONS?: From Vince Palamara's the W/C gems....

21 H 564:

DPD Asst. Chief Charles Batchelor---"He [Lawson of the SECRET SERVICE] also stated that we should have men on each railroad and traffic overpass that the presidential party would go under, and that these people should be instructed NOT TO LET ANYONE STAND OVER THE IMMEDIATE PATH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARTY." [emphasisi added---not adhered to in Dealey Plaza!]; 4 H 327: Secret Service agent Winston G. Lawson himself testifies that "any citizen", no exceptions, were to be kept off overpasses. In fact, 4 H 351: Lawson testified: "I recall thinking we were coming to an overpass now, so I glanced up to see if it was clear, the way most of them had been, THE WAY ALL OF THEM HAD BEEN UP UNTIL THAT TIME ON THE WAY DOWNTOWN, AND IT WAS NOT...And I was looking for the officer WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO BE THERE...and I made a kind of motion through the windshield trying to get his attention to move the people from over our path THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...we were just approaching this overpass when I heard a shot." [emphasis added---was this a visual distraction, as the umbrella man was? In the new Z-film video---the sprocket area---Secret Service agent Clint Hill, in particular, is seemingly transfixed on the umbrella man DURING the initial shooting!]; 2 H 119:

In regards to the video, imo fwiw, i do think Dr.Thompson has done the community a diservice in joining in the latest New York Times continuing effort to smear, guffaw whatever word you want to choose, the CT Community,of which they are well known through the years in doing so at any given opportunity, of which up until now, i believe though there may have been some with previous doubts perhaps of his alliance, it was almost without question, i do think he has hurt his own reputation within said community, more by his actions and comments on the video, than he has hurt the Community, though he has been represented by his book SSID in the past as being a positive CTr , he is after all only one.and will remain so, and the community is a village and not just represented by any one person and has never been, i do not believe that those within that have studied the assassination and have to some degree a knowledge on the subject will be fooled or not for long, by any as they have not been by such as Gary Mack who has tried, playing both sides against the middle, and been tripped up repeatedly during his involvements in L/N documentarys of the past..I personally think that any researcher who would join in with the said NYT would be regarded also in similar fashion, the only time such as the NYT will welcome any well known CTr, or otherwise, is to at least trip him up if possible, and heap some type of scorn on all within, such as the ''wing nut accusation''....but it happened, and with the Drs participation, i was and am very surprised at his unsettling appearance.......imo just one of the community..b....it is like the old saying if you lay down with fleas.......they get you...

Edited November 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Someone isn't thinking this through. The limo had to slow dramatically as it came to a stop. Some witnesses

saw the whole event, others only part--for dozens of different reasons, including their locations and multiple

distractions. So some saw it slow dramatically, while others saw it slow dramatically and come to a stop. The

witness reports are highly consistent once you factor in differences in location and perspective. That so many

reported it came to a complete stop is the key. Why would anyone report that if it hadn't happened? This is a

highly salient feature of the situation, one in which witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect

to their recollections. Some saw all of it, others only part. There is no mystery here. Plus there is nothing in

the extant film that resembles either dramatic slowing or a complete stop. They all impeach the extant film.

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?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory?

Regards

Lee

It is difficult to sift through the "slowed down" witnessess to "almost stopped" witnesses, to "stopped" witnesses. But the sifting has to be done, and I fear there is a great hesitancy to do this. By the way, I subjectively would link the "almost stopped" witnesses with the "stopped" witnesses as being more corroborative of each other than the "slowed down" witnesses, but that's just an opinion. Based upon Toni Foster, Hargis,Chaney, the Newmans, and a few others, I believe the limo stopped momentarily, for such a short time that others might have said it "almost stopped." But that is again my opinion. I also feel insufficient reflection/study on the matter has hurt the research community and progress on the case. Best, Daniel

Edited November 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Well, this is quite fascinating. Thanks for tracking it down. The use of a flechette should have left a wound on his

neck, but there was nothing resembling any such wound reported at Parkland, Bethesda, or elsewhere. We know he

had a small entry wound in the mid-line of his throat, a most unlikely location for a flechette fired from the side. It

was described as a bullet's entry wound three times by Malcolm Perry, M.D., during the Parkland Press Conference.

We also know that there was a through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield and that cerebellar tissue was seen

extruding from the wound at the back of his head at Parkland. Bob Livingston, M.D., world authority on the human

brain, explained to me that even the near-simultaneous impact of two hits (one from behind, one from the right/

front) would not have caused cerebellum to extrude--unless the tough membrane that covers it, the tentorium, had

been ruptured. It could not have ruptured from a flechette, but appears to have ruptured when the bullet hit his

skeleton and broke in two, one part going downward into his right lung, the other upward and rupturing the tough

membrane. Nor would a flechette explain the two small shrapnel wounds in his face, which appear to have been

caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through the windshield--and made the sound of a firecracker!

That Josiah Thompson should casually dismiss the idea, given this study, however, further impugns his integrity.

Not only has he repudiated the double-hit analysis that was the strongest scientific contribution of his book, but

we find the following passage about the Umbrella Man in this study by Richard Sprague and Robert Cutler, namely:

Questions have always been raised about TUM (The Umbrella Man) ever since Josiah Thompson and Richard Sprague

discovered the open umbrella in a series of photographs. Photo #13, a picture taken by Phil Willis at Zapruder frame

202, shows TUM with open umbrella. Photos #4, 5, and 6 (frames 224, 225, and 227 of Zapruder's film) show the

umbrella protruding from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Photo #14 (by Richard Bothun) shows TUM less than

a minute after the shots, sitting on the edge of the grass near his original position, with another man seated next

to him. The umbrella is lying on the sidewalk. Photos #15 and 16 (by Wilma Bond) show TUM a minute later, standing

near the highway sign holding the umbrella.

So he is in the process of divesting himself of any significant contribution to the possibility of conspiracy in the death

of JFK but David Lifton should have been raising cain over his reminder that he has abandoned the double-hit account,

since Lifton had had it pointed out to him by Richard Feynman, a Nobel laureate in physics, when he showed him frames

of the Zapruder film at an early stage in his research. Apparently, in his zeal to attack me based upon ignorance of my

research on 9/11, he overlooked a direct conflict with his own research on JFK! This is turing out to be quite a circus.

P.S. Jack told me that Robert Cutler had done studies of all of this some time back. Could someone repost it here?

Jim,

Much of Cutler's work was consistent with (and sometimes based upon) the reportage of Fletcher Prouty.

THE UMBRELLA SYTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague & Robert Cutler

Edited November 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

In the earlier post, he tells us that he has "been working on a new manuscript", which is supposed to show that, although there was no double-hit, there was a shot from in front, which means "JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313". But we already know that, in the extant film, that dramatic movement does take place, as Richard Feynman verified. So what's going on? Since his head DOES dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 of the extant film, does he mean that this "dramatic movement" is an artifact of the recreation of the film? Not likely, I am sure we would all agree. But how can he explain away a feature that a meticulous study in his his own previous book demonstrated so clearly and which Richard Feynman independently confirmed? I am supposed to be "the silly one" but this is quite bizarre. Josiah is truly "some piece of work"!

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.

Edited November 26, 2011 by James H. Fetzer