Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Denny Zartman

Are there any JFK protests similar to Umbrella Man's heckling?

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to hear Vince's response on whether any umbrella waving experiences occurred during other JFK public appearances.  I don't recall any myself, usually protests against JFK were quite graphic and explicit, with signs or placards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if it was innocent protesting, why did it happen right in the kill zone marked by the yellow-painted curbing at the same time JFK was being murdered, and right next to a random man with a radio-shaped device in his pocket making a military-style gesture at the same time?  Why not anywhere else along the motorcade route, at a different time, in a crowd of just regular people waving?  Are we to explain it away, like so many other events around the JFK assassination, as mere "coincidence"?

BTW Larry - I am reading "Someone Would Have Talked" and I am thoroughly fascinated by the level of detail and connections you make throughout this finely crafted book.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Rick McTague said:

And if it was innocent protesting, why did it happen right in the kill zone marked by the yellow-painted curbing at the same time JFK was being murdered, and right next to a random man with a radio-shaped device in his pocket making a military-style gesture at the same time?  Why not anywhere else along the motorcade route, at a different time, in a crowd of just regular people waving?  Are we to explain it away, like so many other events around the JFK assassination, as mere "coincidence"?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would probably be good to resurface the detail as to how Witt became associated with the story in the first place.  Someone here probably recalls it better than I but to my memory Witt really never discussed it widely but did make some sort of remark about it to a fellow worker.  That individual was either in one of Jack White's assassination classes or it otherwise came to Jack's attention and he visited Witt at work and confronted Witt with the claim....at which time Witt either had to buy in and support the story or admit he had just made it up.   He stuck with the story but if you examine his HSCA remarks in detail, including his self-described path to the sidewalk you begin to wonder if he had really even been there.  Well at least it struck me that way after comparing them to pictures of the area.  

No doubt someone has more detail on how his story did come to public attention in the first place.  I don't recall his having told anyone about it immediately following the assassination but perhaps he did...if he didn't he would be one of the very few not to remark about his experience in the days after November 22 - about having been right there on the street next to the president when he was shot.  I'm certainly curious as to the earliest date he related his experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witt lied.  Why I don't know.  Five minutes of fame or CIA influence.  I don't recall reading much on his background.  The recent story of umbrella man protesting (as the last thing JFK saw) JFK's cancelling of the umbrella of air support during the Bay of Pigs is much more plausible than Witt protesting JFK's Father supporting Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.  Hargraves and Felipe were involved in Cuban operations.  Witt's story was a bit obscure and dated, in more than one respect.

Did the HSCA ever ask him if he knew DCM?  Did they ever ask him (much less Hargraves) why he was pumping the umbrella?

Was Witt politically involved otherwise?

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Witt lied.  Why I don't know.  Five minutes of fame or CIA influence.  I don't recall reading much on his background.  The recent story of umbrella man protesting (as the last thing JFK saw) JFK's cancelling of the umbrella of air support during the Bay of Pigs is much more plausible than Witt protesting JFK's Father supporting Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.  Hargraves and Felipe were involved in Cuban operations.  Witt's story was a bit obscure and dated, in more than one respect.

Did the HSCA ever ask him if he knew DCM?  Did they ever ask him (much less Hargraves) why he was pumping the umbrella?

Was Witt politically involved otherwise?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm

Quote

Mr. GENZMAN. What did you hear at that time? Did you hear voices? 
Mr. WITT. I don't recall any voices at that particular time. After I finally became aware that something had happened, you know, something terrible had happened, I just sat down. I was standing on the retaining wall, and I just sat down, just right straight down, and apparently--I don't know if I had laid the umbrella down or dropped it or what I did. Nevertheless, I think it ended up on the sidewalk and I just sat there. Some of the things that I recall, one of the things I remember seeing while standing, there was a couple, I looked down to the right and there was a man and a woman, and they were covering some children, they were lying down and they were covering the children with their bodies and this may have caused me to sit down or I may have just sat down because I was stunned. Because there for a few minutes or for a few seconds at least I didn't seem to be able to collect my thoughts. Sometime later after the cars moved out, this is when all this activity in the cars stopping and the cars moved out, I recall a man sitting down to my right and he said something like: They done shot them folks. He repeated it two or three times but it was repetitious of him saying the same thing. 
Mr. GENZMAN. What was he saying? 
Mr. WITT. They done shot them folks--something to this effect. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Can you describe this man? 
Mr. WITT. I remember him as being a Negro man. I don't know if I ever actually looked at him for any length of time or not.

...

Mr. GENZMAN. In the other exhibit, which is JFK F-404, can you identify either of those men sitting? 
Mr. WITT. Yes. The one on the right is definitely me. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Is the one on the left the man whom you were talking about earlier? 
Mr. WITT. I really don't know. It could be or it might no be. I really don't know. I don't recall ever actually looking at this person. I don't know if I ever replied to what he said. I could have, just kind of speaking automatically, maybe agreeing with what he said or something like this. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Did this man have a walkie-talkie, or a radio, or any device of any sort? 
Mr. WITT. I don't recall the person carrying anything, although I would say this, that they could have been carrying something and it would not have registered on me at this particular time. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Did he act in any peculiar manner? 
Mr. WITT. Not that I recall. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you ever see him before or after that day? 
Mr. WITT. No. 

...

Mr. DEVINE. As I recall, when the President's motorcade was moving toward you, you were standing. Did you run the umbrella up and down as a symbol of Neville Chamberlain or did you just hold it up or did you point it in his direction? What did you do, specifically? 
Mr. WITT. I really don't recall. I could have moved the umbrella up and down but I just don't recall. 

...

Mr. FITHIAN. It is very hard 30 years hence to understand how much the symbol of Neville Chamberlain became associated with an umbrella. 
Mr. Witt, in 1963, you said you were a conservative and you did not care much for liberal policies and you didn't care much for liberal politicians; is that correct? 
Mr. WITT. Yes. 
Mr. FITHIAN. Do you remember what groups or organizations you belonged to in 1963? 
Mr. WITT. None. 
Mr. FITHIAN. Not even any civic organizations or clubs? 
Mr. WITT. At that time; no. 
Mr. FITHIAN. Have you ever belonged to organizations such as the White Citizens Council or Ku Klux Klan? 
Mr. WITT. No; I am just not a joiner of organizations in general. I am certainly not a joiner of organizations either to the left or the right. 

...

Mr. FAUNTROY. I have one more question for Mr. Witt: You have indicated that you have learned over these years now that the umbrella man was considered a factor; that even someone has suggested the umbrella was a gun and that it may have been a signal. You may want also to know and, therefore, to help us, that the person sitting beside you has been alleged to have been a Cuban and that other pictures taken in the plaza suggested that he may have been talking on a two-way radio while he was sitting beside you. It would have been of great interest to us to identify who that person sitting beside you was. For that reason I simply ask, is there anything that you can recall about the person that would enable us to find him, even as we found you, because your story sounds plausible? 
Mr. WITT. I wish that I could give you more information, but I am sorry I can't. Now, as for him talking on a--- 
Mr. FAUNTROY. Two-way radio. 
Mr. WITT. Two-way radio, while sitting beside me, I feel sure that I would have been aware of that even though I was stunned and I don't recall ever looking directly at the man, but I believe that anyone who was sitting that close, as the picture shows him, I feel sure that I would have known if they were holding--because those walkie-talkie things are fairly large, they are certainly bigger than a person's hand. I feel like I would have remembered that. I can't say with 100 percent certainty that I would have remembered that, but somehow I just feel like I would have.

...

Chairman STOKES. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Devine. 
Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just one question for the purpose of the record, Mr. Witt. This appears to have been somewhat of an impulsive act on your part. Is there anything in your history that you have been a demonstrator or picket or engaged in symbolic acts in the past, or is this a single incident in your life that you wish had never happened? 
Mr. WITT. Never before. This is the only time.

...
Mr. DEVINE. For the record, this is the first and probably the last time you have engaged in a demonstration such as this? 
Mr. WITT. Indeed; the first and the last. 
Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

 

Edited by Denny Zartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Quote

Mr. GENZMAN. What did you hear at that time? Did you hear voices? 
Mr. WITT. I don't recall any voices at that particular time. After I finally became aware that something had happened, you know, something terrible had happened, I just sat down. I was standing on the retaining wall, and I just sat down, just right straight down, and apparently--I don't know if I had laid the umbrella down or dropped it or what I did. Nevertheless, I think it ended up on the sidewalk and I just sat there. Some of the things that I recall, one of the things I remember seeing while standing, there was a couple, I looked down to the right and there was a man and a woman, and they were covering some children, they were lying down and they were covering the children with their bodies and this may have caused me to sit down or I may have just sat down because I was stunned. Because there for a few minutes or for a few seconds at least I didn't seem to be able to collect my thoughts. Sometime later after the cars moved out, this is when all this activity in the cars stopping and the cars moved out, I recall a man sitting down to my right and he said something like: They done shot them folks. He repeated it two or three times but it was repetitious of him saying the same thing. 
Mr. GENZMAN. What was he saying? 
Mr. WITT. They done shot them folks--something to this effect. 
Mr. GENZMAN. Can you describe this man? 
Mr. WITT. I remember him as being a Negro man. I don't know if I ever actually looked at him for any length of time or not.
Mr. GENZMAN. Did you hear any other voices? 
Mr. WITT. Well, there was sort of a pandemonium all around. The other thing that stands out in my mind, there was a woman or a girl, a female voice up behind me shrieking and crying, and she again repeated the same thing several times. She said something to the effect: They shot those people right before my eyes, or something like this. Anyway, there was repetition in what she said. She said it two or three times.

...

Mr. WITT. Yes. I don't know which of these came first, but the person sitting to my right said something to the effect that "They done shot them folks," something like that. I think it was repeated about two or three times. It was repetitious. I don't know if they meant to be talking to me, or if they were just talking out loud to themselves. As I testified before, I don't think I ever actually looked directly at this person. I don't recall ever, say, just turning and taking a good look at the person. I think what I was doing, I was--at this point I was somewhat stunned, and I just heard this while sitting there. At about this same time--I don't know if it was before I heard this or after-- about this same time there was this female voice up behind me shrieking and saying, "They have shot those people. They shot those people." I think she may have said "They shot those people before my eyes" or something like this, There were a number of people--I could hear crying in the background, this sort of thing.

Compare those statements above to the following statements:

Quote

Mr. GENZMAN. When you left, did you go back to work? 
Mr. WITT. Yes. 
Mr. GENZMAN. When did you find out the President had in fact been assassinated? 
Mr. WITT. When I went back into the building into the department where I worked. Someone in there had a transistor radio. The first thing that was said when I walked in, "Did you hear about the President being shot?"
I said something to the effect of I was down there in all that. 

...

Mr. WITT. I can assure you I was not all that cool. I think one of my reactions was knowing that I was there with this stupid umbrella and heckling the President and-of course, I didn't know that the President had been killed. As a matter of fact, I didn't know he had been shot. I just knew that something had happened by the activity and what seemed to be in the air around me. But I think my own thinking may have been at the time that ---I would have to describe it as a--kind of like a bad joke that had gone sour, or a practical joke you pulled on someone that had gone sour, since I was there with this thing, and for that purpose. 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Quote

Mr. FAUNTROY. So that--is it your testimony that you did not learn that somebody was concerned about the umbrella man until 10 or 15 years after, until 1978--only in 1978 were you aware? 
Mr. WITT. Well, as far as I know, no one was concerned with me. 
Mr. FAUNTROY. So that explains, therefore, why you did not yourself contact the FBI or the police--Dallas Police Department, because you did not--you were not aware that someone with an umbrella in Dealey Plaza was an object of interest? 
Mr. WITT. No. As a matter of fact, I wasn't aware that I was an object of interest. As a matter of fact, I have found out since-- within the last few weeks, that there have been countless numbers of books and all sorts of controversies over this thing. But I drifted along all of these years and I have never seen one of these books because I have never been a fan of this assassination thing. I don't go out of my way to read anything about it. So it sort of all has gone over my head up until the last few weeks. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

The woman said "those people" and the DCM said "them folks." Witt probably couldn't imagine that it was the President who had been shot-nor could millions of other Americans who were stunned by the news. Speaking of being stunned, I am amazed that this is still a subject of interest here. If you look at Jerry Organ's graphic, it is obvious that Witt was indeed TUM. Sitting here and micro analyzing his statements isn't going to change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

The woman said "those people" and the DCM said "them folks." Witt probably couldn't imagine that it was the President who had been shot-nor could millions of other Americans who were stunned by the news. Speaking of being stunned, I am amazed that this is still a subject of interest here. If you look at Jerry Organ's graphic, it is obvious that Witt was indeed TUM. Sitting here and micro analyzing his statements isn't going to change that fact.

Once again, EXACTLY.  I believe that things like Umbrella Man are what simply make the conspiracy enthusiasts (my new kinder, gentler term) look silly.  I see absolutely nothing suspicious or inconsistent in Witt's statements.  He seems to be drawing a pretty clear distinction between hearing that "folks" and "people" had been "shot" and later learning "the President" had been shot and "assassinated."  If he were my client and this were a deposition transcript, I certainly wouldn't be thinking "Oh, Lord, they're going to impeach him at trial with this."

And again, applying logic and common sense:  Would it make ANY SENSE for sophisticated conspirators to have something as completely goofy and out of place as Umbrella Man standing in full view for the purpose of whatever you think he was doing - signaling or firing poison-tipped darts or whatever???  Do you seriously think assassins would be relying on umbrella signals to time their shots - as though Umbrella Man were the Leonard Bernstein of the assassination?  How about a signal to JFK as to why he was being killed - because he didn't provide umbrella air coverage at the Bay of Pigs?  Uh-huh.  If an out-of-place umbrella conspicuously popping open and closed near the curb were going to have any effect, wouldn't the most likely one be to cause the President to duck down or other evasive action to be taken? 

Umbrella Man, the Magic Bullet, Yada Yada - these are the very things, the ridiculous red flags, you WOULDN'T have if a conspiracy were afoot.  The ultimate conclusion of this sort of logic is the position that Sandy took in the Prayer Man thread:  The conspirators were sending a message about how completely in control they were and didn't even CARE if Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD or that the assassination had more red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow.

More logic and common sense:  With a decade to get their house in order, would the conspirators send someone forward with Witt's bizarre Neville Chamberlain explanation???  To this day I don't understand the logic of what he said or how he thought JFK was going to understand what this protest was all about (he had apparently heard that umbrellas were a "sore spot" with the Kennedy family) - but I do know that if I were organizing a conspiracy Witt would've had a much more mundane and plausible explanation than this.  It's the very absurdity of Witt's explanation that points toward truth ("Just wacky enough to be true," as Tink Thompson said).  I would be willing to bet that not only will you not find any other "umbrella protests" in the annals of JFK, but you won't find anyone who ever even THOUGHT of an "umbrella protest."

Lastly, I would say that the VAST majority of my friends - most of whom, like me, were teenagers when JFK was assassinated - have never read a book on the assassination.  Would never think of reading a book on the assassination.  For that matter, they've never read a book on UFOs.  Only in Conspiracy Land is something like this "suspicious."

Addendum, kind of interesting:

Those who opposed Chamberlain’s work soon began to mock him using a signature accessory of his as their ammunition – his large black umbrella, ever present by his side. Throughout the 1930s and 40s, the black umbrella had been used in satirical cartoons to poke fun at the Prime Minister, as well as in protest. When the Berlin Wall was being constructed, a group of schoolchildren sent a black umbrella, emblazoned with the word “Chamberlain” to the White House.

 

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witt's explanation wasn't nearly as esoteric as I had thought.  JFK might well have understood the symbolism of the black umbrella.  Its significance was and is well-understood throughout Europe.

Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella was ubiquitous during the Munich Crisis and in its aftermath, as material object, as commodity, and as political emblem that came to represent the temperament and character of the ‘Man of Peace’ who had brought relief to the world by striking a ‘gentleman’s peace’ with Hitler on 30 September 1938. This culminated in the damning portrayal of the Prime Minister as the ‘Umbrella Man’ in ‘Cato’s’ Guilty Men (1940). Throwing the spotlight on the material object of the umbrella can illuminate the popular dimension of these highly charged diplomatic events, and offer some insight into how foreign policy was lived across the social spectrum and across borders. We can chart dramatic fluctuations in both mediated and visceral public opinion in the changing symbolic uses of the umbrella, by politicians, by journalists, by cartoonists, and by consumers themselves. The study of appeasement has been stuck in certain methodological ruts, and has not hitherto taken the cultural turn, nor paid much attention to popular responses to the prelude to the People’s War. By blowing the dust off Chamberlain’s old umbrella, this article suggests an alternative perspective on the politics and culture of appeasement, evoking the sights, sounds, textures, feelings and tastes of a crisis that was played out at the level of diplomacy but also very much as a ‘People’s Crisis’.

Gottlieb, J.V. (2016) Neville Chamberlain’s Umbrella: ‘Object’ Lessons in the History of Appeasement. Twentieth Century British History, 27 (3). pp. 357-388. ISSN 1477-4674, http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/10136

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Once again, EXACTLY.  I believe that things like Umbrella Man are what simply make the conspiracy enthusiasts (my new kinder, gentler term) look silly.  I see absolutely nothing suspicious or inconsistent in Witt's statements.  He seems to be drawing a pretty clear distinction between hearing that "folks" and "people" had been "shot" and later learning "the President" had been shot and "assassinated."  If he were my client and this were a deposition transcript, I certainly wouldn't be thinking "Oh, Lord, they're going to impeach him at trial with this."

And again, applying logic and common sense:  Would it make ANY SENSE for sophisticated conspirators to have something as completely goofy and out of place as Umbrella Man standing in full view for the purpose of whatever you think he was doing - signaling or firing poison-tipped darts or whatever???  Do you seriously think assassins would be relying on umbrella signals to time their shots - as though Umbrella Man were the Leonard Bernstein of the assassination?  How about a signal to JFK as to why he was being killed - because he didn't provide umbrella air coverage at the Bay of Pigs?  Uh-huh.  If an out-of-place umbrella conspicuously popping open and closed near the curb were going to have any effect, wouldn't the most likely one be to cause the President to duck down or other evasive action to be taken? 

Umbrella Man, the Magic Bullet, Yada Yada - these are the very things, the ridiculous red flags, you WOULDN'T have if a conspiracy were afoot.  The ultimate conclusion of this sort of logic is the position that Sandy took in the Prayer Man thread:  The conspirators were sending a message about how completely in control they were and didn't even CARE if Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD or that the assassination had more red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow.

More logic and common sense:  With a decade to get their house in order, would the conspirators send someone forward with Witt's bizarre Neville Chamberlain explanation???  To this day I don't understand the logic of what he said or how he thought JFK was going to understand what this protest was all about (he had apparently heard that umbrellas were a "sore spot" with the Kennedy family) - but I do know that if I were organizing a conspiracy Witt would've had a much more mundane and plausible explanation than this.  It's the very absurdity of Witt's explanation that points toward truth ("Just wacky enough to be true," as Tink Thompson said).  I would be willing to bet that not only will you not find any other "umbrella protests" in the annals of JFK, but you won't find anyone who ever even THOUGHT of an "umbrella protest."

Lastly, I would say that the VAST majority of my friends - most of whom, like me, were teenagers when JFK was assassinated - have never read a book on the assassination.  Would never think of reading a book on the assassination.  For that matter, they've never read a book on UFOs.  Only in Conspiracy Land is something like this "suspicious.

Addendum, kind of interesting:

Those who opposed Chamberlain’s work soon began to mock him using a signature accessory of his as their ammunition – his large black umbrella, ever present by his side. Throughout the 1930s and 40s, the black umbrella had been used in satirical cartoons to poke fun at the Prime Minister, as well as in protest. When the Berlin Wall was being constructed, a group of schoolchildren sent a black umbrella, emblazoned with the word “Chamberlain” to the White House.

 

They had decades to cover up their crime and the single bullet theory was the best they could come up with. How many of your friends who never read a JFK book knew the Kennedy family was frightened of umbrellas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

They had decades to cover up their crime and the single bullet theory was the best they could come up with. How many of your friends who never read a JFK book knew the Kennedy family was frightened of umbrellas?

I don't think they were "frightened" of umbrellas.  Witt had been told by a coworker that JFK had written a thesis on appeasement and that the umbrella would touch a "sore spot" with him.

This short video is undoubtedly old hat, but what a breath of fresh air, what a voice of reason!  A friend of mine makes exactly the same point that Tink Thompson makes - i.e., many historical events have a weird "quantum dimension" that appears only when viewed through the distorting lens of an electron microscope.  This is, of course, precisely where Conspiracy Land begins.

Good Lord, Witt lived to be 90 - he just died in 2014 in Rockwall, TX (former home of Alex Jones and current home of Marina Herself!).  Did any of our intrepid conspiracy enthusiasts ever do any follow-up?  Nah, that's no fun - too likely to spoil your pet theory.  Better to just engage in dark speculation about who this seemingly ordinary cluck might have been.  BTW, do conspiracy participants typically sit back down on the grass and then wander over toward the TSBD, as Witt did?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...