I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So basically you simply trust his word?

By the way: Did the HSCA ever try to identify the Dark Complected Man? He could've corrobarated Witt's statement. And he was a suspicious character in his own right, in my opinion.

Perhaps it would be simpler if we shifted to a new approach:  Identifying the people living in America in 1963 who weren't involved in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mathias,

Payette knows all the questions about that transaction.  

Like DVP, he is simply stirring things up all over again.  DVP has already admitted that he does not have a life.  Payette is retired.  He apparently needs something to do.

If just once, either of these guys would bring in something new from the declassified files, that would be one thing.

They don't.  I have little doubt that they do not read one single page.

So how interested can they be in this subject, really.

Like I said, I hope Payette takes up handball.  With DVP, hopefully he unretires and goes back to KFC.  I mean he did not make a lot of money form his book.

I need to get a life???  I've been pretty much retired since 2012.  I have 297 posts in 3+ years.  You have 4,900.  The question "Do these people have any life apart from the JFK assassination?" has occurred to me more than once in regard to several of the regulars here.  Alas, I have an active life and a diversity of interests that detract from my ability to turn the JFK assassination into a consuming obsession.  I thought it was rather heroic of me to wade through Walt Brown's entire JFK chronology on Kindle - how many True Believers have done THAT?

Has anyone noticed that you are playing the Conspiracy Game precisely as I have described it?  You cannot answer the substance or logic of my posts, so you shift to a rather bizarre version of "Oh, yeah, well what about THIS?"

"Oh, yeah, well has Payette brought in ANYTHING NEW FROM THE DECLASSIFIED FILES?"  I did notice the one memo on CIA letterhead that referred to The Dress Rehearsal In Chicago having gone awry and something about the need to "activate" agent Oswald in Dallas if he still had his Italian weapon of mass destruction, but I didn't see it as directly relevant to the Lone Nut explanation.

Handball?  No need, thanks.  I've been an avid golfer for 55 years and could kick your butt 101 times out of 100.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Guest

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for proving my point.

You have nothing of any substance to say on this case at all.

So why not go back to Ufology?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

48 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

As I've pointed out - they compared photos from 1978 to photos taken in 1963. Are you suggesting that Witt didn't change a bit in those 15 years? Not even his hair?

Looks like his hair got a little greyer, but no-he didn't change that much.

49 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

But I bet there are thousands of people in America who resemble him if all you have to compare them to is a grainy photo.

But those thousands of people who could resemble him were not working in Dallas and living in Dallas as he was.

50 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

And, come to think of it, he wasn't even sure if it was the right umbrella? You don't find that suspicious?

No.

[Joe Bauer]

DCM was never identified?  Not one person ever contacted the authorities to suggest even a guess as to who he was?  That could mean he was not a local person.

And if he wasn't, his time and effort to come to Dallas from farther away for a super close up, few feet away view of JFK and Jackie and to give them such an enthusiastic arm and hand thrusting approval greeting, suggests he must have been a great admirer.

Or, was this seemingly friendly warm arm and hand thrusting actually a more cynical act?

Was there a middle finger extended from that lifted hand?

If Umbrella Man's uniquely weird antics and closeness to the kill zone weren't suspiciously bizarre enough, just add to this his and DCM's immediate similar reaction to sitting down on the grass abutment curb at the same time and close enough together as couples sitting in a movie theater and holding hands.

Heck, actual friends Mary Moorman and Jean Hill didn't grab each other in fear...Hill took off running on her own!

I have wondered, has anyone ever done a studied analysis regarding identifying each person seen in photos of the crowd on Elm street that day? And if so, did they come up with a guesstimate of how many could "not" be identified? In percentages?

You would think that DCM, if totally innocent of any nefarious intent or actions, might have come forward to identify himself for reasons such as posterity or maybe even some financial gain. That he would have told "someone" of his super unique time and location place in one of the most important events in American history.

And, if he had children or other relatives or a wife, girl friend and workmates, you would think that one of them might have come forward by now to ID him for similar reasons.

His staying secret only helped add to the suspicions people naturally would have in considering his presence and actions at that time and scene as something more than innocent.

I will throw this out there for the sake of more dramatic speculation. DCM  looks like Morgan Freeman to me.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[James DiEugenio]

Joe:

 

To me, that is the point that everyone seems to avoid.  Its not so much what they do individually, but the fact that they seem to have found each other in that place and at that time.

And they both act oddly, unlike anyone else.  Especially after the shooting.  I mean everyone springs into a panic mode and starts running around, most of them to the picket fence.

But not those two.  And that is weird.  If we jump to a speculative conclusion, its almost like they knew what was going to occur so they were not at all surprised.

Now, if you add in the cock and bull story Witt told the HSCA about how he got there in the first place, I mean give me a break.

And then why he raised the umbrella?  

The fact that the WC never explored this angle at all, at least as far as I know, tells you what they were doing.  Not much.

 

 

[Denny Zartman]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Cory,

But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all?

I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?

Do you have any photographs or films that show anyone else protesting any of JFK's public appearances by holding up an open umbrella on a day where there is no rain?

[Ray Mitcham]

And strange they were standing just where the yellow lines had been newly painted on the Elm St freeway curbs. Another amazing coincidence?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

And strange they were standing just where the yellow lines had been newly painted on the Elm St freeway curbs. Another amazing coincidence?

Ray, what is the significance of this in your opinion?

[Cory Santos]

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, the WC was a fact-finding body, not a legal proceeding. If LHO had not been killed and had been tried in Dallas, he would have been judged guilty or innocent on the evidence from Dallas, not by what the CIA or FBI was doing. And he would have been found guilty very, very quickly.

The Warren Ommision's job was to find the truth.  Contrary to what has been said by others, actually, there were legal standards applicable.  The same went for the House.  If someone is giving testimony under oath, it is a legal proceeding.  I don't agree he would have been found guilty.  It depends on whom his attorney was.  A good attorney would have been able to pick apart the evidence so as to create a reasonable doubt.  I don't want to get into the Gerry Spence thing because really, it is apples and oranges.  It would be like me trying to litigate the OJ case now 20 years later.  It was good show-and anytime I watch a master like Spence in the courtroom I learn so much.  

Consider the Ruby trial.  It was sent back down on appeal.

Garrison actually was going somewhere with Shaw's perjury trial-I am not taking sides just making an observation which so many have not even studied- until the federal court in an amazing break with precedent intervened.  I wrote about this extensively in Law School.  The paper was good enough to publish, but, was told shy away from the JFK thing so I did.  I will look at your article on Witt, I am open to changing my mind but it better be persuasive.

Can you admit, going back to my response, that it is inherently wrong to prejudice an investigation when a persons reputation is at stake and a nation is waiting to accept the findings as proof, regardless if the reason was innocent or embarrassing?  Can you admit it is inherently wrong regardless of the intentions of those who corrupt the investigation?

Thanks for the responses.

[Cory Santos]

12 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Cory,

 

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers1.htm

BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Lee E. Bowers, Jr.,

 

“This car was a 1957 Ford, Black, 2 door with Texas license. This man appeared to have a mike or telephone in the car.”

 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

 

“Mr. BOWERS - Yes, some 15 minutes or so after this, at approximately 12 o'clock, 20 to 12--I guess 12:20 would be close to it, little time differential there--but there was another car which was a 1957 black Ford, with one male in it that seemed to have a mike or telephone or something that gave the appearance of that at least.
Mr. BALL - How could you tell that?
Mr. BOWERS - He was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other, and gave that appearance.”

 

Doesn't sound like a transistor radio to me.

 

Steve Thomas

Motorola had car phones/talkies at that time, they had for several years.  I know this because the I have represented the Lears for over a decade now.  His father was the inventor.

[Cory Santos]

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

And strange they were standing just where the yellow lines had been newly painted on the Elm St freeway curbs. Another amazing coincidence?

Could just be what I call a "strange coincidence".  Maybe not.  The key as DVD and I have been discussing is could a shooter in the 6th floor window see them?

[Cory Santos]

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I just went back and reread his testimony recently. I am trying to figure out how there is anything suspicious in what he said. He told them where he worked and the route he took to get there. He showed the umbrella, which may or may not be the right umbrella (a fact that he admitted). But the clincher for me is the photos-the shape of his face, the hair is exactly right. I don't see anything to the UM thing and I also don't know why an assassination team (had there been one) would need him or anyone to signal them. In short-it is a dead issue IMO in 2018.

The DCM was never identified. He was probably carrying a transistor radio. If he or the UM had been a part of any assassination team, they would have gotten out of there fast instead of sitting down. But they did sit down because they were stunned by what they had seen. I see nothing unusual in any of this. It is unfortunate that they were not investigated by the WC, but they were operating within time and budgetary constraints.

Thank you Tracy.

So this is important, people are talking, calmly and agreeing on things.  He probably did have a radio.  That is one down, millions of points to go.  Unless Lance is going to object to that???

j.k. Lance, its ok. Please do not object to that.

You also said that they would have gotten out of there fast.  I tend to disagree that this is a one hundred percent fact.  Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.  

When travelling outside the country in.... lets say areas where one needs to be careful, I have been . . . advised.... that you look for things out of the ordinary.  Why on a street are 4 people standing together holding papers over their faces?  Why are no cars parked on one side of the street but the other is?  These are just examples.  You look for the out of ordinary.  Here, people either ran or walked fast to or from the plaza or hit the deck as some did.  These two guys sit calmly down, look around, and on pulls out a radio.  Not good as it stands out.  But why would they just calmly sit down?  Again, we cannot speculate.  But, clearly his mission involved providing intelligence to someone else.  Was he there to confirm the fatal shot?  To confirm the bridge was clear or the decoy worked and people were running up the knoll?  Consider this, what if someone in on it led the people like sheep up the knoll when the shot did not even come from there.  Cover, decoy, important parts of something like this IF it was a conspiracy.  

The time and budgetary constraints is an excellent point.  This happened with the House as well.  The problem is when investigating something as important as this, there can be no restraints.  Certainly our current investigations of Hillary and President Trump prove this.  The time restraints were due to LBJ and re-election issues?  What about hurrying up and getting it settled so that everyone would just move on and not ask questions?  No, when you consider the Gulf of Tonkin and the terrible U.S.S. Liberty attack and LBJ's character as a whole, the time and money constraints were self imposed-remember, he was putting the U.S. into Vietnam at the tune of how much money and blood?

So, he might or might not have gotten out of there fast.  It depends on how safe he felt, remember I think he had a gun under his right arm on his chest.  If the job required him to radio information this was a calm way to do it.  To the public, not trained, it seems fine, nothing sticking out.  To me, it was very suspicious to sit down with a complete and utter stranger.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Can you admit, going back to my response, that it is inherently wrong to prejudice an investigation when a persons reputation is at stake and a nation is waiting to accept the findings as proof, regardless if the reason was innocent or embarrassing?  Can you admit it is inherently wrong regardless of the intentions of those who corrupt the investigation?

I think the CIA people (and RFK) felt that it was in the national interest to withhold the information. In a perfect world, everything would have been disclosed so I will agree to that extent. Just a clarification, the Witt article is by Ron Ecker not me.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

He probably did have a radio. 

To clarify, if he had anything, it may have been a transistor radio.

[Cory Santos]

3 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I think the CIA people (and RFK) felt that it was in the national interest to withhold the information. In a perfect world, everything would have been disclosed so I will agree to that extent. Just a clarification, the Witt article is by Ron Ecker not me.

So, you agree in a perfect world it would have been disclosed.

Why do you feel that?  

 If it is imperfect and not provided, doesn't that automatically make it imperfect and inherently wrong regardless of the intention? 

A perfect world is right and where we want to be correct?  Especially when talking about whether someone or group of people were murders?