Jump to content
The Education Forum

Denny Zartman

Members
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Denny Zartman

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

776 profile views
  1. Hi Lance, nice to talk to you, I enjoy your posts. I am aware of these examples. I did some research before posting this thread. That's why I was so specific in my question. I wonder why it is not obvious to you that you're taking both sides of this argument. You seem to say in one post that you're willing to bet that this Witt protest was maybe the only such recorded public protest of JFK with an umbrella, then you Googled it, and then you came in with an example of JFK being taunted with an umbrella by being sent one by schoolchildren from Bonn as well as quoting an explanation as to why the Kennedy's thought umbrellas to be so utterly vexing. So, if this is true, and umbrellas were indeed a commonly known "sore spot" with the Kennedy's, and finding an example of JFK being mailed an umbrella by Bonn schoolchildren is just a Google search away, surely there are other examples of this type of Umbrella Man protest during one of JFK's public appearances. Remember when someone on another thread recently pointed out that, just before Ruby shot Oswald, a car horn honks just as Oswald is emerging from the doorway in the police station garage and then a second horn honks immediately before Ruby shoots (or the same horn honks again). Someone pointed out that there was a lot of horn honking going on in that garage all day long, and it was silly to associate those two specific honks as signals from a confederate. Okay, I can accept that. A horn honk in a garage is an ordinary event. But it seems to me, by the same logic, if a JFK umbrella protest was even a semi-common occurrence, there should be some other examples of JFK umbrella protests at his many personal appearances around the world over his political lifetime. The LN's argue that an ordinary event has no significance, yet see nothing contradictory in also consistently arguing that extraordinary events also have no significance. When there are so many extraordinary events that defy common sense, does it make sense to continually dismiss them all? You believe that Witt got the idea to heckle JFK from a co-worker who told Witt that the Kennedy's were annoyed by umbrellas. And so, for the first and only time in his life, the slightly conservative but otherwise apolitical Witt decided to protest JFK's public appearance with an umbrella in a way that people all around the world who politically protest on a regular or semi-regular basis (and surely at least one knew of the significance of the umbrella and that Kennedy would be annoyed by it) never did or never even thought to do. Even an average Dallas office worker knows how much the Kennedy's are annoyed by umbrellas, yet you seem to genuinely think it's plausible that Witt was the first and only person in the world during JFK's lifetime to put two-and-two together and heckle JFK in public with an umbrella on a non-rainy day. You seem to say you believe that Witt could literally be the first and last person to ever think of protesting one of JFK's public appearances with an umbrella, and it just happened to be in the very 5.6 seconds JFK was shot. And Witt just happened to be one of only two people who sat down calmly after the assassination when everyone else appeared to still be crouching from the gunfire or running up toward the fence on the knoll. And Witt just by accident, so crazy it's gotta be true, just happened by the bad luck of fate to sit down next to the only other calm man in the area. And the only other calm man just happened to appear to briefly talk into a two-way radio. Bad luck for both these guys. Hey, maybe DC Man's radio was not a two-way radio, but only a transistor radio. Maybe DC Man was just checking the baseball score, or seeing if his favorite song was coming up on the countdown, or something equally believable. I mean, according to Witt, DC Man was traumatized at that moment, but a traumatized man suddenly wanting to listen to the radio seems perfectly logical. It's so wacky, that it has to be true. It's so unbelievable, and that's exactly what makes it believable and why you believe it. But, if it's innocently explained as DC Man holding a transistor radio and wanting to hear his favorite song in a time of extreme stress or checking to see if his favorite team was ahead heading into the ninth, why doesn't he just keep on innocently listening to his radio as common sense would indicate a genuinely innocent person would likely do? Why stuff it in the back of his pants and walk away as if he had someplace to go? (There I go, seeing something suspicious in suspicious behavior and not realizing that because it's so suspicious it's proof of how non-suspicious it really is. Logic so topsy-turvy that it's just gotta be sound.) Why does Witt say he didn't see the assassination because the umbrella was blocking his view? Pictures clearly show the umbrella is over his head. In my opinion "It's so wacky' it's gotta be true" is perhaps not the most effective guiding principle when attempting to evaluate complex evidence from an incomplete record. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's not the way I personally would choose to approach the issues.
  2. Hi Lance, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)?
  3. Hi Tracy, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)?
  4. And this is one more I have to point out, because it's an example of how so many things simply don't pass the smell test. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm We're supposed to believe that Witt, who was interested enough to go see JFK and engage in the only act of political protest in his lifetime, wasn't interested enough to read a single book or newspaper article about the assassination that Witt allegedly stood just a few feet away from. You'd think Witt would want to read just one JFK book if only to find out what he'd missed seeing because of the umbrella that was magically simultaneously over his head and blocking his view. He also says that somehow he wasn't aware of the books and controversies in the fifteen years after the assassination. Unless he was living in some arctic wilderness during that time, I don't see how that's possible to be anything but a lie.
  5. It is bizarre how Witt describes the statements he allegedly heard spoken by a woman and DC Man, yet Witt also claims that he didn't know JFK was even shot until after he got back to his workplace. Setting aside everything else for the sake of argument, I just don't see how this is possible or plausible. This blatant contradiction alone would make me suspicious. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm Compare those statements above to the following statements: I could understand Witt going back to work and not knowing that JFK was actually pronounced dead or not, but it doesn't say that Witt came back to the office and was told JFK was dead - only that he was shot. He clarifies it in the second statement in the quoted passages above. Witt was trying to claim that he didn't know JFK was even shot by the time Witt got back to his office. That's impossible for me to believe, and I don't see how anyone could possibly accept these statements as truthful. What did Witt think DC Man and the unidentified woman Witt reportedly overheard repeatedly saying variations of "they were shot" were talking about?
  6. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm
  7. These are all good points. My follow-ups to the question I posed in the headline and first post would be: Why does Witt claim to have not seen the assassination because the umbrella was blocking his view, when it's clear that he was holding the open umbrella over his head at the time the shots were fired? What's the innocent explanation for this, or are we wrong when we see Umbrella Man holding the umbrella over his head during the assassination? Why does Witt claim that he didn't even know JFK was shot until Witt had returned to his office? According to his own story, the DC Man and an un-identified woman nearby repeated the word "shot" or some close variation at least twice each. And Witt even demonstrates the rate of gunfire by knocking on the table. And we're supposed to believe that the commotion in Dealey Plaza immediately after the assassination didn't finally clue him in?
  8. Denny Zartman

    In-depth Interviews with Tosh Plumlee

    http://jfkcountercoup2.blogspot.com/2018/10/tosh-plumly-with-rosselli-in-dallas.html http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/rich_n.htm Interesting coincidence?
  9. Hi everyone, Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)? I have a follow-up question as well. Thanks.
  10. Denny Zartman

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    As far as I know the official story has been three shots. I'm not aware of any official story that claims only two. I suppose that if we realistically accept the possibility there there were only two shots, it's not much of a stretch to then suppose that there was maybe really only one shot that went through JFK and Connally, through the limo windshield, looped back around and through the chrome trim, hit the curb near Tague (causing the second sound that only sounded like a gunshot), and then ricocheted back to hit JFK in the head (that being the third loud report) before bouncing back into Connally's clothing and then falling out onto a stretcher. As long as we're thinking about it, perhaps there were no shots fired at all, and JFK's head just spontaneously exploded. All the injuries to Connally and Tague were as a result of being hit by skull fragments. Sounds almost as reasonable to me. But, back here in reality, JFK was hit in the back with a bullet that did not go through his body and only made a shallow wound. JFK was also hit in the front of the throat by a separate bullet. Every medical professional that saw the anterior throat wound before the tracheostomy thought it was one of entrance. There were more fragments left in Connally than could have possibly come from the nearly pristine bullet that was alleged to have caused seven wounds on two men going through at least five layers of clothing and two bones, and then came out of Connally's thigh, on it's own and was not only barely deformed but also clean of blood, tissue, and fibers. Have we all forgotten that the single bullet theory was not one that was arrived at by medical professionals or even the initial FBI investigators, but one that was constructed by WC assistant Arlen Specter, who didn't even look at the autopsy photos or X-Rays?
  11. Denny Zartman

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Okay. I suppose I just misunderstood you. It sounded like you believed Tague was hit by a fragment from the third head shot and that there was no first missed shot.
  12. Denny Zartman

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    I don't get what you're trying to say. I'm not saying anything about which shot missed. It seems like you're saying that the shot that hit JFK in the head also produced a fragment that made a mark on the curb near Tague and then bounced and hit Tague on the face? You think a fragment from the headshot went on to strike the curb and Tague, in addition to another shot that missed entirely?
  13. Denny Zartman

    Umbrella Man pic?

    I'm curious. Is there any evidence of anyone else protesting JFK with an umbrella in this manner at any of JFK's other public appearances when it wasn't raining?
  14. Denny Zartman

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    Sure. ? It seems like you're saying that the shot that hit also produced a fragment that made a mark on the curb near Tague and then bounced and hit Tague on the face, but that shot was the shot that the WC called a missed shot, wasn't it?
  15. Denny Zartman

    I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

    CT's can understand that. Can LN's understand that evidence can be faked and planted? Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces? If LN's are going to rely solely on evidence, why do they wave away any problems with the chain of evidence as immaterial? Of course some witnesses recall things differently, but that doesn't discount the usefulness of witness testimony. With as many people claiming to be lawyers on this forum, that truth should be evident. If someone stole my purple hat, and I call a detective, and the detective finds multiple witnesses all saying they saw someone with a purple hat in their hands running up Main street and going into the orange building, the detective doesn't get to go back to the police station and shrug her shoulders and say "Sorry, I have no leads whatsoever. That hat is as good as gone." IT would be foolish to admit otherwise. LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well. Helen Markham was the most prominent witness relied upon for the Tippit killing, and one of the WC's own investigators admitted that she was a "goofball." But that doesn't stop LN's from believing her and other witnesses. They just accept the ones that support their version of events and discount the ones that don't. Acquilla Clemons, who was NOT called a "goofball" by the WC's own staff, and who says she WAS pressured to keep quiet about what she had seen, is conveniently ignored, and Markham unquestioningly accepted. LN's also seem to completely ignore any witnesses that say they were pressured to change their stories because the investigators had already decided on their conclusion - the same conclusion arrived at just a few hours after the assassination.
×