Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Thanks for your post Robert!

It was an interesting Lancer conference this year. Sorry alot of folk missed it. According to what I heard, Larry Hancock is desirous for all of us (CTs) to present a united front for the 50th, stating that even if we don't agree with some things, that we all agree on one thing--it was a conspiracy and we need to proceed from that. (What a great idea, Larry, but gosh, i don't know).

After reading all of the posts here, and noting that what was said on the video interview is seen by some as anathema to "the cause"( or at least that is the way I am reading some of these things), I believe that the unity that Hancock desires will never be accomplished.

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Fetzer believes it is this type of evidence that can be used to buy the American Public into easily understanding the nature of the conspiracy. He says this and then instructs you to read 15 books and go view John Costella's numerous internet videos. I say anyone who thinks these items can be used to buy large groups of people into beliveing there was a conspiracy is as mad as a hatter. Even if they're true...

Regards

Lee

Researchers bashing other researchers is a lose-lose proposition, irrespective of the validity of the reasoning processes which "rationalize" it. I have books by James Fetzer and Josiah Thompson....

and both have made significant contributions......we [the Forum] have a large audience, and when this stuff goes on

it hurts all of us, because we are recognized as a community, however fragmented it is. I have yet

to see an example of this sort of stuff going on, in which the phrase "check your ego at the door," wouldn't have

solved the issue before it was started.

:DThanks Robert, in fact, i have been waiting for a word from you, you make sense..imo..just a memory, when Rich had his forum going, he use to have that motto, on the front page, or pages, to leave your ego at the door.......the other i recall was do not p/ in his potted plant on the way out.....just a bit of a grin for a wee break...thanks... :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

No Glenn, it doesn't take that. However, that the "other" film is consistent with the testimony/recollection of the vast majority of eye and ear witnesses to the event is significant. It is further significant that there are items NOT seen in the extant Z-film that were memorable for the eyewitnesses. While it is true that eyewitness testimony/recollections can be faulty, it is also true that memorable items of distinction tend to stand out in one's memory and are more likely to be accurately reported than less memorable items. An unexpected dramatic slowing of the vehicle and/or a distinct STOP are examples of such items. That Abraham Zapruder remembered filming the entire turn onto Elm from Houston is another memorable event that is not shown in the extant Z-film. And there are many more examples. How about the Newmans, among others, who reported seeing Secret Service agents climb out of the Queen Mary and draw automatic weapons? How about the wide turn onto Elm that then resulted in an over correction, briefly steering the limo into the far left lane...etc., etc,...? So, before anyone summarily dismisses the idea of Z-film alteration they would be wise to research the subject thoroughly before reaching a conclusion one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your post Robert!

It was an interesting Lancer conference this year. Sorry alot of folk missed it. According to what I heard, Larry Hancock is desirous for all of us (CTs) to present a united front for the 50th, stating that even if we don't agree with some things, that we all agree on one thing--it was a conspiracy and we need to proceed from that. (What a great idea, Larry, but gosh, i don't know).

After reading all of the posts here, and noting that what was said on the video interview is seen by some as anathema to "the cause"( or at least that is the way I am reading some of these things), I believe that the unity that Hancock desires will never be accomplished.

thanks kathy for that bit, i have found no report on the conference as of yet, though there may be one, it would be grand would it not, if all could, but then such as yourself asking for unity and then giving your negative assumption, only adds to that not also...b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just told you how I see it. I do not know how that could be accomplished-honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

You are certainly willing to embarrass yourself, aren't you, Robert? I suggest several excellent studies of the Zapruder film, including "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication", "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", and "What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak", and you response is to cite a book published in 1997? Are you unfamiliar with ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), or THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003)? Have you reviewed the presentations by Jack White, David Healey, David Mantik, David Lifton, John Costella and me which are linked to the first of these studies? It is simply incredible to me that someone who presents himself all over the net as an authority on JFK--and even offers lists of recommended reading that, as of my last review, did not include any of these, which even Vince Bugliosi describes as the only exclusively scientific books ever published on the assassination--would not know more about the Zapruder film and the history of research on that subject. Since these books were all published subsequent to Noel Twyman's, one might have assumed that, before you began making a fool of yourself about an area in which you are obviously massively ignorant, you would AT LEAST read the studies that I recommended. That you have not taken that measure speaks volumes about your research competence. I have sometimes defended you in the past, but this demonstration of arrogance is inexcusable.

Here is a nice quote from a review of Noel Twymann's Bloody Treason on Amazon. It explains why the Zapruder Film could not have been massively altered (I will agree some critical frames were spliced out.)

"Mr. Twyman fails to explain how the original Z film plus 3 first generation copies, as well as, 2 second generation copies were assembled in one location so the original and all the copies could all be altered in the same way. As of November 26, 1963 Zapruder had the original. Life had a 1st generation copy, FBI in Washington had a 2nd generation copy, Washington Secret Service had a 1st generation copy, Dallas FBI had a 2nd generation copy and the Secret Service in Dallas had a 1st generation copy."

Another quote from an Amazon review: B. Lecloux:

"In Badly Reasoned, at the Harold Weisberg Digital Archive, you will find an excellent book length critique of Twyman's claims [of Zapruder Film alteration]. Weisberg is scathing in his analysis of this book. Further, historian David R. Wrone, in his book on the Zapruder film pretty much puts to bed the notion that the Z film was tampered with.

He carefully shows how there was no time for any tamperers to have had the film. And, how would they know that this was the only film they had to phony up? If they didn't know of every possible photo and video of the event, how would they be able to get away with tampering with the Z film.

In terms of common sense, the charge of faking this film is ridiculous. In terms of the documentary record, which is very clear, it doesn't appear to have happened."

Kind of hard to alter the Zapruder Film when the cat has been let out of the bag and their are so many copies floating around.

Regarding the matter of JFK's limo slowing down - it most certainly did slow down (even the break lights were on) but it did NOT stop. It slowed down to a crawl, perhaps 5 miles per hour, maybe a tad slower than that.

It is certainly possible that Dark Complected Man - who I fully believe was in on the assassination - was signaling the driver William Greer to slow down or stop so that JFK could be killed. Possible but I think a more likely explanation of DCM's actions is that he is signaling a sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll that JFK is still alive and we need a head kill shot. DCM is literally standing off the sidewalk, about a foot into Elm Street.

And it does seem very clear that the Secret Service put JFK's limo out front, with no large press bus as had been in other motorcades in Texas, so that JFK could be easily shot. This does not mean that all Secret Service Agents were involved in the JFK assassination, perhaps key players such as James Rowley, who was a good friend of Lyndon Johnson and about his same age. Emory Roberts behavior is quite suspicious, too.

Now back to good ole Umbrella Man - I do think it is probable that he was coordinating with Dark Complected Man (who by the way, was probably an anti-Castro CIA-connected Cuban who hated JFK as much as he hated Fidel Castro). I too an extremely suspicious of Louis Steven Witt and doubt he was indeed Umbrella Man. And if Witt was not, then it brings up the matter the question of who, if anyone, prodded him to come forward and tell a bogus story. Possibly the CIA or the plotters. Someone needs to interview Witt's family and attempt to find out if he really was Umbrella Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870

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

Guest James H. Fetzer

I love it how, when I point out that Tink is betraying the movement by offering arguments based upon fallacies, I receive the brunt of the criticism.

Sorry, but I do not accept it. If you can't see that he is gutting conspiracy research on the assassination, we are in bad shape--and I has nothing

to do with me! Members of this forum should stop acting like children and recognize what is taking place RIGHT NOW IN THE NEW YORK TIMES!

Thanks for your post Robert!

It was an interesting Lancer conference this year. Sorry alot of folk missed it. According to what I heard, Larry Hancock is desirous for all of us (CTs) to present a united front for the 50th, stating that even if we don't agree with some things, that we all agree on one thing--it was a conspiracy and we need to proceed from that. (What a great idea, Larry, but gosh, i don't know).

After reading all of the posts here, and noting that what was said on the video interview is seen by some as anathema to "the cause"( or at least that is the way I am reading some of these things), I believe that the unity that Hancock desires will never be accomplished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

I know of six persons who have seen "the other film", including William Raymond, Rich DellaRosa, and Gregory

Burnham. When we have independent confirmation from multiple sources, I cannot imagine why you would be

disposed to talk about "beliefs" as though its existence were a fantasy. I included Rich's summary of the other

film, which he watched on several occasions, as an appendix in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

I am quite sure, however, that, like Robert Morrow, you have never read the studies I recommended to him,

much less HOAX, or reviewed evidence presented in "US Government Official" from the Duluth conference.

While I may have been surprised by the extent of Robert's ignorance, I am not at all surprised by your own.

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Thanks for this gentle reminder, Evan. When I am pissed, it shows. I will try to do better in my choice of words.

Professor (and all other posters),

By all means explain why you think people are wrong, give examples, point out flaws in their argument... but please, do NOT call them "disinfo" agents, "operatives", etc, unless you have clear proof of such and cleared posting of such 'proof' with Mods prior to posting.

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know of six persons who have seen "the other film", including William Raymond, Rich DellaRosa, and Gregory

Burnham. When we have independent confirmation from multiple sources, I cannot imagine why you would be

disposed to talk about "beliefs" as though its existence were a fantasy. I included Rich's summary of the other

film, which he watched on several occasions, as an appendix in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003).

I am quite sure, however, that, like Robert Morrow, you have never read the studies I recommended to him,

much less HOAX, or reviewed evidence presented in "US Government Official" from the Duluth conference.

While I may have been surprised by the extent of Robert's ignorance, I am not at all surprised by your own.

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

Quite possibly it takes the beliefs that there was "another film", showing a different reality of what happened?

Of course you are not.

After throwing me to the wolfs five minutes after having announced to you that I had documentation that proved Judyth Baker was lying, nothing surprises me about you. You have no judgment and your understanding of what constitutes evidence is zero.

What else is new?

"JVB is the real deal" - hehe, the most ridiculous position anyone has ever tried to get away with on this forum.

But you don't understand this and you never will. "Witt was lying and the two of them were obviously a couple". Pure baloney, without anything to back it up, which you never do. You want this and that to be a fact and therefor it is. Laughable.

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I share Larry Hancock's desire that all CTers present a united front for the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination. I've pleaded for that myself here many times. However, anyone who reads the threads on this forum with regularity must realize how unlikely it is that the research community will ever be united. The fact that my posts about this subject are invariably met with silence from everyone is a good indicator of how little support there is for this.

Many of us have objected to what Gary Mack has said on the television programs he's appeared in over the past few years. Despite his private assertions that he remains a CTer, every word he says on these programs is in defense of the official story, and each program is clearly positing the lone nutter premise. We have the same kind of problem with this interview Josiah Thompson gave- his criticism is directed exclusively at CTers who maintain the Umbrella Man was connected in some way to the assassination. If he wanted to impart some truly important information, he might have pointed out a few strong indications of conspiracy, considering he had the chance to reach a lot more readers than any of us have on this or any other internet forum. Instead, he chose to ridicule those dastardly "conspiracy theorists" again, calling one of them a "wingnut" in the process.

Very few of us have access to public forums like the Discovery Channel or the New York Times. Thus, when people like Mack or Thompson are granted this kind of wide platform, and they use it to promote the official, lone nutter fairy tale, it's pretty reasonable to expect CTers to be upset about that. It doesn't matter that there are some irresponsible CTers; the powerful forces that covered up the assassination and continue to distort the truth about it to this day were and are far more irresponsible than the biggest "wacko" or "wingnut" Mack or Thompson can produce.

Another question I've asked several times, which has also gone unanwered here, is this: to those of you who claim to still be a CTer, but now believe TUM was Witt, that there were no mysterious deaths of witnesses, that the back wound was higher than the clothing holes indicate, that there was no huge hole in the back of JFK's head, that the Secret Service was not negligent that day, that there was no hole in the windshield, etc.- exactly what leads you to believe there was a conspiracy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don,

You raise very good points, IMO, and have asked a very good question, as well. I think that part of the answer to your question remains unpleasant. For those who have been involved in this investigation for "the long haul" it is no stretch of the imagination to conclude that we (WR critics) were long ago infiltrated by the disingenuous. Any serious student of this case will not be surprised by that fact. Indeed, it is par for the course no matter how "nutty" some may paint that statement. It should not even be a surprise. Would we really expect anything less? Not a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always had problems with the Witt testimony not just on the above, but how many people keep the same umbrella for 15 years? It does not appear that Witt did so since it appears to be the wrong one.

I have no opinion on whether or not it "was" the same umbrella, but ....

IF it was, and IF I had been the person in Dealey Plaza pumping it up and down in protest the moment JFK was assassinated, then I "would" have kept it to my dying day.

Perhaps, an heir would have had the pleasure of selling said umbrella at an auction for an enormous sum ...

That umbrella would have been a precious keepsake for me. No doubt about it.

Umbrellas are cheap.

Where is THAT umbrella today anyway?

Regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DJ: any of us have objected to what Gary Mack has said on the television programs he's appeared in over the past few years. Despite his private assertions that he remains a CTer, every word he says on these programs is in defense of the official story, and each program is clearly positing the lone nutter premise

Its worse than that. If Mack/Dunkel was just parroting the WC that would be one thing.

He goes beyond that. He actually deceives and misrepresents evidence.

For example in his phony reconstruction of Oswald being killed by Ruby, he left out Fritz who was supposed to be in front of him. Yet it was Fritz' inexplicable separation from Oswald that allowed Ruby to kill the accused.

Or how about putting Jackie in the line of fire in that vomitous ITTC special. When Groden actually told him he was wrong. On that one, Dunkel actually performed his own little cover up.

Now as you can see by my new posted article, the plot around TSF hijacking Dealey Plaza for the 50th is thickening. Don't be surprised if this is another Dunkel special.

"There's more to it than Oswald". Is what GM has said for many years, unless I'm mistaken. Where can you find this in the Warren Commissions report?

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...