Josiah Thompson & the Umbrella man

[Cliff Varnell]

The Umbrella Delivery System is real and it is accurate. I do not know if it was employed that day or not, but to dismiss it as if it was impossible is irresponsible.

The Umbrella Delivery System is absolutely real. And I give its odds of being deployed on 11/22/63 as less than one in ten thousand. The killers of JFK were trying to blow his brains out with bullets not poison him with darts.

Perhaps monsieurs Burnham and Morrow will be so good as to share their evidence that this fantastical weapon existed on the day of the assassination.

Len, it existed. There were a number of delivery systems for blood soluble paralytics and toxins developed for the CIA and the US Army Special Forces.

[...]

I think an umbrella would be deployed only in close quarters. I don't see Louis Witt/Umbrella Man as a shooter or a spotter.

I see that JFK appears to seize up paralyzed in about two seconds in the Z-film. That movement is consistent with him being struck with a blood soluble paralytic, since the round did not exit his throat and only caused minor damage, leaving an air-pocket of all things.

The "first-shot/blood-soluble-paralytic" scenario -- suggest by the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- matches the throat wound far better than a "first-shot/kill-shot " scenario.

Thanks for the info Cliff. Yes, implicit in my question was a 'gun' capable of hitting JFK from the distance TUM was at the time. There is also the question of his inability to aim his 'weapon' the way he was holding it. Speaking of which are there any images of him ever pointing the umbrella in vaguely at Kennedy?

Just to be clear you think he was hit with some sort of paralytic dart but think someone else was the shooter?

Correct. Witt's account of his actions match Rosemary Willis' account of TUM's actions.

Free Louis Witt!

[Ian Kingsbury]

But I am disappointed to now see Thompson pontificating about an extraneous issue like the UMBRELLA MAN!

Because there is nothing suspicious about a man opening an umbrella on a bright warm sunny day in Dallas and pumping it up and down in the air at the precise moment the President is shot at the precise moment the limousine passes him and his very dry umbrella.

Happens all the time

[Ian Kingsbury]

Nor is it suspicious that a dark skinned man could stroll upto the

Presidential limo off the sidwalk and into the road waving his hands about

In Dallas in 1963?. Kellerman looked right at him perhaps he thought

He was an autograph hunter?.

[Mike Rago]

I find it very curious that you all think that a man waving an umbrella in full view of the secret service is suspicious but you totally ignore this picture taken less than a minute after the last head shot. This is the suspicious activity. When you examine the activity immediately preceding and following you find even more suspicious activity.

What the inside of the pergola looks like when looking down from above

Edited September 22, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Len Colby]

I find it very curious that you all think that a man waving an umbrella in full view of the secret service is suspicious but you totally ignore this picture taken less than a minute after the last head shot. This is the suspicious activity. When you examine the activity immediately preceding and following you find even more suspicious activity.

What the inside of the pergola looks like when looking down from above

??????

[Mike Rago]

This is what the inside of the pergola shelter looks like when looking down.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Len Colby]

This is what the inside of the pergola shelter looks like when looking down.

Yes, and???? What's your point?

[Mike Rago]

I have already stated my point. The umbrella man is not the suspicious activity. This is the suspicious activity.

[Len Colby]

I have already stated my point. The umbrella man is not the suspicious activity. This is the suspicious activity.

And just what was this supposedly "suspicious activity" and what is the relevance of the supposed orientation of the pergola?

[Mike Rago]

What do you see in that picture?

Edited September 24, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Len Colby]

What do you see in that picture?

Nothing especially suspicious, what do YOU see? You are the one citing it.

[Mike Rago]

Again, what do you see in that picture?

First, how many people do you see?

Who are the people that you see?

I bet you are also going to tell me that you do not see a man dressed like a policeman inside the red circle.

Or anything suspicious about the way Charles Hester leaves his wife laying in the grass ....

(Charles Hester is inside the red rectangle, his wife is at the red arrow)

(gif file by Chris Davidson)

And I bet you do not find the FBI statements of the Hester suspicious where they both told the FBI they were on the south side of elm street before the assassination...

http://educationforu...98

Edited September 25, 2012 by Mike Rago

[Len Colby]

Again, what do you see in that picture?

First, how many people do you see?

Who are the people that you see?

What part of "...what do YOU see? You are the one citing it." did you fail to comprehend? But, there seems to be 1 - 3 people in the pergola. Due to being low resolution and in an area of shadow it is not possible to determine who 'they' are or what 'they' are doing.

I bet you are also going to tell me that you do not see a man dressed like a policeman inside the red circle.

As with the 1st image due to lack of resolution and illumination it's not possible to tell. And if it were a cop what would that prove?

Or anything suspicious about the way Charles Hester leaves his wife laying in the grass ....

(Charles Hester is inside the red rectangle, his wife is at the red arrow)

(gif file by Chris Davidson)

And I bet you do not find the FBI statements of the Hester suspicious where they both told the FBI they were on the south side of elm street before the assassination...

http://educationforu...98

Why is any of this 'suspicious'?

I'm done playing games with you, you keep saying things are suspicious but never articulate why. I doubt you even know.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Len Colby

[Mike Rago]

I am not playing a game. I am asking you some questions and you are avoiding answering.

[Norman T. Field]

Yes, you are playing a game.

You demand answers from people to whom you and your opinions mean nothing while contributing zero to the current body of research and knowledge. The members of this forum have zero obligation to answer your rants.

Frankly, I am surprised that they have put up with your rants as long as they have.

Were you ever disbarred? Were you ever involved in the Florida hospitality industry? Your atttitude is rather reminiscent of another xxxxx we used to know.