Josiah Tink Thompson: NOVA JFK show "rigged" and "biased"

[Anthony DeFiore]

[URL="http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Novas_JFK_show_rigged_and_biased_author_says.html"]
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Novas_..._says.html[/URL]

A terrible show and a great researcher making a definitive point!

[Albert Doyle]

Good. He was using the show for promotion of his next book. He disowned the Lone Nut conclusions of the show.

[Phil Dagosto]

But there was a lot more fundamentally wrong with the show than how they treated the acoustic evidence.

I cited a bunch the night it was broadcast:

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...og5snDLu_g

But I'll add one more. In the their defense of the SBT and accounting for the shots I don't recall hearing the name James Tague mentioned.

I will also add that I was a little disappointed that Dr. Thompson went out of his way to say that he had "zero interest in any conspiracy theories" and only wanted to figure out what happened. That's his privilege of course but to what end is finding out what happened if one does not then ask "why"?

[Peter Lemkin]

Thompson's 'stand' the last few decades is deeply troubling and ever changing. That he even thinks that Oswald shot anyone from anywhere is deeply disturbing and IMO disqualifies what ever else he might have to say from serious consideration. Now, he seems to also believe someone else [or Oswald with his superhero fast footwork?] also shot from the N. Knoll. Hard to tell if he is getting senile, was always a bit crazy or acting as a disinfo/confusion agent. The more different and divergent theories put out there, the more the Truth his diluted - this has been the MAIN tactic of the people behind the Big Lies of Dallas....the 'Oswald did it alone' gambit/lie a distant second. Recent evidence and research that is getting harder and harder to cover-up and deny clearly show [as it has shown from day 1!] that there were more than three shots and they came from multiple [more than 2!] directions. Nothing shows - in fact everything I've seen and studied shows negative that Oswald was on the 6th floor, near any window, with any rifle or fired any shots. But a patsy is no good for the real perpetrators if not billed forever as the patsy...no matter what truths, facts, evidence, etc. has to be twisted, invented, suppressed, et al. And to think it was his book Six Seconds in Dallas that was the first book to really draw me into a formal study of the case........ Sad, but he is only one of many people either knowingly or coincidentally aiding the Big Lie. They get big play on the MSM, but Truth always trumps chumps.

[Tracy Riddle]

I read Six Seconds in Dallas twenty years ago, but from what I remember he only focused on the minutiae of Dealey Plaza, and didn't speculate about who might have been behind the assassination or how large the plot was. He may never have been interested in that aspect.

The problem is, you can spend your whole life studying and arguing with other researchers (as this forum proves) about how many shots were fired, where they came from, what does the photographic evidence show, etc. It's like missing the forest because you're counting the leaves on the trees.

[Anthony DeFiore]

Oh, he's still pretty sharp. He was on his game at at the Wecht Conference.

LHO can never be made out to be the assassin because the science precludes him.

Thanks to the "Law & Order" / "CSI" cultural phenom, the fact that Oswald had no paraffin test markings on his face definitively proves that he could not have shot this old rifle that showers gunsmoke residue everywhere ~ especially onto a shooters face which would have been touching the rifle or very, very close to it at firing. Also, LHO had a palm print on the rifle ~ FOUND AFTER ~ The FBI found none and the Dallas Police re-fingerprinted the rifle AFTER Oswald's death. To that end, the palm print was found in a backwards position on the rifle for Oswald to even use it for firing! And finally, the scope on the rifle was defective and I have read that it was a scope for a LEFT HANDED SHOT!

Thompson's 'stand' the last few decades is deeply troubling and ever changing. That he even thinks that Oswald shot anyone from anywhere is deeply disturbing and IMO disqualifies what ever else he might have to say from serious consideration. Now, he seems to also believe someone else [or Oswald with his superhero fast footwork?] also shot from the N. Knoll. Hard to tell if he is getting senile, was always a bit crazy or acting as a disinfo/confusion agent. The more different and divergent theories put out there, the more the Truth his diluted - this has been the MAIN tactic of the people behind the Big Lies of Dallas....the 'Oswald did it alone' gambit/lie a distant second. Recent evidence and research that is getting harder and harder to cover-up and deny clearly show [as it has shown from day 1!] that there were more than three shots and they came from multiple [more than 2!] directions. Nothing shows - in fact everything I've seen and studied shows negative that Oswald was on the 6th floor, near any window, with any rifle or fired any shots. But a patsy is no good for the real perpetrators if not billed forever as the patsy...no matter what truths, facts, evidence, etc. has to be twisted, invented, suppressed, et al. And to think it was his book Six Seconds in Dallas that was the first book to really draw me into a formal study of the case........ Sad, but he is only one of many people either knowingly or coincidentally aiding the Big Lie. They get big play on the MSM, but Truth always trumps chumps.

[Anthony DeFiore]

Tracy, look at Thompson and Fitzgerald's work and Groden's research on the bullet hole in the top of the head (HSCA). It is excellent and it adds a 4th shot to the assassination. They all presented it at the Wecht Conference rather conclusively and well.

I read Six Seconds in Dallas twenty years ago, but from what I remember he only focused on the minutiae of Dealey Plaza, and didn't speculate about who might have been behind the assassination or how large the plot was. He may never have been interested in that aspect.

The problem is, you can spend your whole life studying and arguing with other researchers (as this forum proves) about how many shots were fired, where they came from, what does the photographic evidence show, etc. It's like missing the forest because you're counting the leaves on the trees.