Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Bernice Moore]

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

[Bernice Moore]

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

:lol:Perhaps a Forum called; LEAVE YOUR EGOS AT THE DOOR ??????? per Roberts post; :lol: :blink: or........THE NO NAME FORUM.. B)

[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 November 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Glenn Viklund]

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 November 27, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[Don Jeffries]

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?

[Greg Burnham]

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.

[Peter Fokes]

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,

[Glenn Viklund]

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?

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice,

Alan is a friend of mine. I think it was not irresponsible for Sprague and Cutler to endorse the flechette hypothesis when, to the best of my knowledge, (i) they did not have access to the Parkland Press Conference transcript (which was not even provided to the Warren Commission), (ii) they did not know there was a through-and-through hole in the windshield, (iii) they were apparently unaware of the tiny shrapnel wounds in JFK's face, and (iv) they did not know that, unless the tentorium had been previously ruptured, even the near simultaneous impact of the shot to the back of his head and the frangible hit around his right temple would not have been sufficient to cause cerebellum to extrude from the world. So this appears to be a classic case of acquiring new information and new hypotheses that make a difference to understanding what took place, where, in this case, hypotheses that were previously accepted should be rejected and hypotheses that were previously rejected should be accepted. After this discussion, I think I could do a better job of explaining to Alan why I do not endorse his hypothesis. Thanks very much for introducing his work here. I am sure I have copies if you want them.

Jim

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.

DR.Salerian's REPORT;

Alan Salerian believes that "President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison," which paralyzed the President and rendered him

"immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull."

http://www.historica...dence.net/?p=60

He also posits that it was a smiling Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, captured in a photograph. A.J. Weberman has offered evidence that it was not Conein.

Also:

"On November 22, the first exhibition of Dr. Alen Salerian's paintings will happen in a private venue in honor and remembrance of President John F. Kennedy and his ideals. His assassination on the date in 1963, has been the backdrop and catalyst to this emotionally sweeping visual homage the painter calls JFK: Symbols on Canvas.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence

Alen J. Salerian

Washington Center for Psychiatry, 5225 Wisconsin Avenue # 104, Washington, District of columbia 20015, USA

Received 29 May 2008;

accepted 1 June 2008.

Available online 20 August 2008.

Summary

This paper proves that President Kennedy’s postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton’s second law “an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”. We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?f

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled “The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence” at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.

2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.

3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.

4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact: Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762,

http://educationforu...showtopic=15058

Dr.Salerian's Video Report...

I have completed searches but cannot find the pages of his report, does anyone have a link or the 4 pages i believe it said it was, thanks.b

Edited November 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

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.

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

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

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

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? 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.)

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

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.

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

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 specificity 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.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Edited November 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Could someone post a picture of the stripes that were painted on the curb on the south side of Elm Street? They are 3 of them. Each approximately 7 feet long and separated by approximately 40 feet. Robert Groden says you can see them in the Zapruder Film. (Perhaps just before JFK's limo is about to cross behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.)

There was a very clear picture of them in a presentation by Brian Edwards at JFK Lancer 2011. I think the Dallas police have this picture of them.

I think the stripes were used as a marker for "kill zones" for the snipers (from the front) of JFK. They *may* have also been used as a marker for William Greer the driver to slow down (or possibly stop) so that JFK could be killed. It seems to me that the stripes were located directly across from the Stemmons Freeway sign and Dark Complected Man, who I absolutely believe was involved in the JFK assassination.

My current thinking is that key elements of the Secret Service were in on the JFK assassination along with Lyndon Johnson (and Allen Dulles, CIA folks).

These 3 stripes were painted along the side of the curb and also on top of the curb. They would have been extremely visible at the time. I was in Dealey Plaza a few weeks ago and some of the yellow paint of one of the 3 stripes is STILL on the curb. Beverly Oliver says that on 11/22/63 she stepped on fresh paint and still has the paint on her shoes to this day. Beverly Oliver told me she was age 17 at the time of the JFK assassination, which means she is age 65 currently in 2011.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Robert Morrow