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

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 realize I'd get an F- in Conspiracy Logic, but if I were planning a conspiracy in which a guy on the 6th floor of the TSBD were the designated patsy, it seems to me that I'd locate all of the actual shooters within a plausible cone extending from JFK to the 6th floor - on the roof of the TSBD, perhaps, or on one or more of the other floors.  At least in the ballpark of the 6th floor, so I wouldn't have to be altering the Zapruder film, the body, the autopsy photos, etc.  I think I'd realize that a headshot from the front, or a neat little entrance wound in the throat, would be a problem that could easily be avoided, thereby eliminating the need for a cover-up conspiracy leaving 927 clues and involving 4,825 people who didn't need to be involved at all.  It also seems to me that I would want to avoid locations like the Grassy Knoll, which was not only completely inconsistent with the location of my designated patsy but also highly visible and didn't provide an easy escape route.

Moreover, how did those shots from the front work?  Did Throat Wound Assassin actually have such control that he could be sure of making a tidy hole at JFK's tie knot, as opposed to blowing off his nose or entering at his left nipple and leaving a massive wound in his back?  Was it actually planned that this tidy hole would be located in sufficient proximity to the back wound and the holes in the clothing to serve as a plausible exit for the SBT?  Did Head Wound Assassin have such control that he could be sure of producing a wound that might serve as a plausible exit wound, as opposed to nailing JFK square in the forehead or nose or mouth?  How did the conspirators know that the shots from the front wouldn't make it completely impossible that their designated patsy had been the assassin?

My point with the Magic Bullet is how easy it would have been to make this simply disappear from the case.  JFK's brain disappeared, for crying out loud.  Or at least make it appear a more plausible candidate for the SBT - fire it from another cartridge into something that would produce more plausible damage.  If you aren't worried about altering the Zapruder film, the body and the autopsy photos, why would you hesitate to deal with this inconvenient bit of evidence?

As Tink Thompson suggests, weird stuff happens in the real world.  Umbrella Man and his explanation are too unlikely and problematical to be sinister.  The Magic Bullet is too unlikely and problematical to be sinister.  The throat wound is too unlikely and problematical to be sinister.  The fact that the holes in the clothing and the wounds require a bunched-jacked explanation is too unlikely and problematical to be sinister.  They are the indicia of real-world events.  They become "sinister" only when viewed through the electron microscope of Conspiracy Logic.  View a glass of perfectly healthy water through an electron microscope and you may never drink water again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, David Boylan said:

So, why would JFK be embarrassed by his thesis? What sore spot?

 

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKPP-026-002.aspx

There was no suggestion that JFK would be embarrassed by his thesis.  The idea, as I understand it, is that the umbrella would have been a sore point with him because (1) as the author of a thesis on appeasement and a student of history, he was intimately familiar with Neville Chamberlain's pleas for appeasement, which made Chamberlain a much-despised figure, as well as the widespread use of a black umbrella as symbolic of Chamberlain and his position,  (2) his own much-despised father was associated with Chamberlain, and (3) the umbrella would have brought points 1 and 2 to mind and perhaps communicated "and you're no different."  (Wikipedia:  "Kennedy rejected the belief of Winston Churchill that any compromise with Nazi Germany was impossible. Instead, he supported Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's policy of appeasement.")

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you compare Witt's HSCA testimony to the Umbrella Man's actions

in the Zapruder film, you will see Witt is a fake. It's as simple as that.

Edited by Joseph McBride

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

If you compare Witt's HSCA testimony to the Umbrella Man's actions

in the Zapruder film, you will see Witt is a fake. It's as simple as that.

It's always "as simple as that" in Conspiracy Land.  A fake what?  Not the umbrella man at all?  Not telling the truth about why he was there and what he did?  Whose fake was he - what evidence is there of anything in his 90-year life connecting him in any way with the assassination apart from standing there with an umbrella for precisely the reason he stated to the HSCA?  In what sense is he a "fake" that has any bearing on the assassination?  In what sense is he a fake that is consistent with common sense and logic?

His HSCA testimony, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm,  seems entirely guileless and plausible.  If he was a plant, he wasn't very well coached.  He makes pretty clear that he was stunned and doesn't have a photographic recollection of those ten minutes 15 years previously - hence his use of the terms "probably" and "apparently" and his frank admission to not remembering several things.  The only thing that confused me were his references to standing on the "retaining wall."  I assume he means the elevated concrete "curb" separating the sidewalk from the grassy knoll, which is in fact where he was and is in fact a retaining wall of sorts, rather than what most of us think of as the retaining wall up by the pergola (which is nowhere near where he was standing).

Having viewed again the fleeting glimpse of umbrella man in the Zapruder film, as well as well as the other views of him, I would ask on precisely what basis do you determine that Louie Steven Witt was a "fake" as opposed to "someone who admittedly didn't have a photographic recollection of those ten minutes 15 years ago but knew damn well why he was there and what he did"?  You certainly can't make an assertion as bald as yours on the basis of the Zapruder film unless Conspiracy Logic is driving the bus.

This is a very perceptive article from a neuroscience website on what the author calls "anomaly hunting," using umbrella man as an example:  https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting-and-the-umbrella-man/:

To quote:  

Conspiracy theorists have essentially formalized the tendency to assume agency, deliberateness, and sinister motivations in the quirky details of events. Conspiracy theories are often an exercise in anomaly hunting. When anomalies, like the Umbrella Man, are inevitably found it is assumed that they are evidence for a conspiracy.

The assumption that anomalies must be significant rather than random is an error in the understanding of statistics, a form of innumeracy. It is also partly the lottery fallacy – which involves asking the wrong question. The name of the fallacy is based on the most common illustrative example. If John Smith wins the lottery our natural tendency is to consider what the odds are that John Smith won (usually hundreds of millions to one). However, the correct question is – what are the odds that anyone would have won, in which case the odds are close to one to one (at least over a few weeks).

The fallacy is in confusing a priori probability with posterior probability – once you know the outcome, asking for the odds of that particular outcome. This is perhaps more obvious when we consider the odds of someone winning the lottery twice. This occurs regularly, and when it does the press often reports the odds as being astronomical. They are usually also falsely considering the odds of one person winning on two successive individual lottery tickets. Further, they calculate the odds of John Smith winning twice, rather than the odds of anyone anywhere winning twice (the odds are actually quite good and match the observed rate).

So – conspiracy theorists tend to ask, what are the odds of a man standing with an open umbrella right next to the president when he was shot? Rather they should be asking – what are the odds of anything unusual occurring in any way associated with the JFK assassination?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should all fold up tent and go home, right?  Its all about conspiracy theorists, and their flawed logic.  And obviously, you are an expert in quantum mechanics. The guy with the umbrella was Witt, he had a simple reason for what he did, and we should all get over it ...  nothing suspicious.  I know I'll regret pushing back and stating this, but you protest way too much:  

Conspiracy theorists have essentially formalized the tendency to assume agency, deliberateness, and sinister motivations in the quirky details of events. Conspiracy theories are often an exercise in anomaly hunting. When anomalies, like the Umbrella Man, are inevitably found it is assumed that they are evidence for a conspiracy. This is, of course, precisely where Conspiracy Land begins.  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?  The fallacy is in confusing a priori probability with posterior probability ...

Your diatribe convinces me there's more to this than meets the eye ... God (and you) only knows what it was.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 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.

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)?

Share this post


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

It's always "as simple as that" in Conspiracy Land.  A fake what?  Not the umbrella man at all?  Not telling the truth about why he was there and what he did?  Whose fake was he - what evidence is there of anything in his 90-year life connecting him in any way with the assassination apart from standing there with an umbrella for precisely the reason he stated to the HSCA?  In what sense is he a "fake" that has any bearing on the assassination?  In what sense is he a fake that is consistent with common sense and logic?

His HSCA testimony, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm,  seems entirely guileless and plausible.  If he was a plant, he wasn't very well coached.  He makes pretty clear that he was stunned and doesn't have a photographic recollection of those ten minutes 15 years previously - hence his use of the terms "probably" and "apparently" and his frank admission to not remembering several things.  The only thing that confused me were his references to standing on the "retaining wall."  I assume he means the elevated concrete "curb" separating the sidewalk from the grassy knoll, which is in fact where he was and is in fact a retaining wall of sorts, rather than what most of us think of as the retaining wall up by the pergola (which is nowhere near where he was standing).

Having viewed again the fleeting glimpse of umbrella man in the Zapruder film, as well as well as the other views of him, I would ask on precisely what basis do you determine that Louie Steven Witt was a "fake" as opposed to "someone who admittedly didn't have a photographic recollection of those ten minutes 15 years ago but knew damn well why he was there and what he did"?  You certainly can't make an assertion as bald as yours on the basis of the Zapruder film unless Conspiracy Logic is driving the bus.

This is a very perceptive article from a neuroscience website on what the author calls "anomaly hunting," using umbrella man as an example:  https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anomaly-hunting-and-the-umbrella-man/:

To quote:  

Conspiracy theorists have essentially formalized the tendency to assume agency, deliberateness, and sinister motivations in the quirky details of events. Conspiracy theories are often an exercise in anomaly hunting. When anomalies, like the Umbrella Man, are inevitably found it is assumed that they are evidence for a conspiracy.

The assumption that anomalies must be significant rather than random is an error in the understanding of statistics, a form of innumeracy. It is also partly the lottery fallacy – which involves asking the wrong question. The name of the fallacy is based on the most common illustrative example. If John Smith wins the lottery our natural tendency is to consider what the odds are that John Smith won (usually hundreds of millions to one). However, the correct question is – what are the odds that anyone would have won, in which case the odds are close to one to one (at least over a few weeks).

The fallacy is in confusing a priori probability with posterior probability – once you know the outcome, asking for the odds of that particular outcome. This is perhaps more obvious when we consider the odds of someone winning the lottery twice. This occurs regularly, and when it does the press often reports the odds as being astronomical. They are usually also falsely considering the odds of one person winning on two successive individual lottery tickets. Further, they calculate the odds of John Smith winning twice, rather than the odds of anyone anywhere winning twice (the odds are actually quite good and match the observed rate).

So – conspiracy theorists tend to ask, what are the odds of a man standing with an open umbrella right next to the president when he was shot? Rather they should be asking – what are the odds of anything unusual occurring in any way associated with the JFK assassination?

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)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

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?

 

"former home of Alex Jones"  Your not trying to hijack the tread with BS are ya Lance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Witt makes reference to his feeling of concerned self-consciousness as soon as he realizes the dire seriousness of what has just happened within just 20 to 25 feet of his strange protest demonstration toward JFK.

He clearly infers that he knew he might be noticed for his weird stand out action considering how close he was to the president being shot while he performed this.

He says he was stunned into frozen standing, yet he was cognitive enough to contemplate this apprehension scenario immediately, thus dropping his umbrella and getting down to a sitting position which I feel was his way of trying not to stand out any more than he already may have with his umbrella waving or pumping.

Witt also says he noticed Bill and Gayle Newman dropping down and protecting their children in an action that one would expect from people who thought they were in the line of gunshot fire.

It was right after this that he says he dropped to the curb to just sit there ... and gather his thoughts ?

He says he doesn't recall looking directly at the negro man who just happened to sit down next to Witt so closely they could have grabbed each other's hands.

Witt says he looked directly at and watched the Newman's drop to the ground.

However, he doesn't give even a glance to someone plopping right down next to him just inches away?

Yet he was able to describe the DCM as negro.

And he quotes the DCM as saying "They done shot them folks."

If true, that kind of American slang does not sound like something a native Cuban would have said.

At the same time Witt says he couldn't remember ever looking directly at the DCM, he then says that if the DCM had had a walkie-talkie, he believes he would have noticed this. ???

How can you say you never looked directly at someone and then say you still think you would have noticed what he may have been carrying or doing at the same time?

What more does a person need to hear ( loud and powerful gunshots and a sitting partner saying "They done shot them folks" 3 times! )  before he is aware that someone in the JFK limo was wounded?

Also, I am not sure exactly how close Witt was to the limo when JFK was shot in the head relative to the Newmans. But, Bill Newman says Mrs. Kennedy screamed "Oh My God, they've shot Jack) so loudly and clearly, he will never ever forget hearing this.

Witt saw so much and so closely and probably heard what the Newman's heard.

And for him to claim he never read anything about the assassination and wasn't inclined to do so...when he was within feet of one of the most powerful and traumatic and important events in our history  ... is beyond belief in my opinion.

Imagine being just a few rows of seats away from Abraham Lincoln when he was shot in Ford's theater. You would be sharing what you witnessed up close like that with your family and friends the rest of your life.

Witt was interested in reading about the Kennedy's appeasement history yet JFK's assassination right in front of him in broad daylight doesn't garner his reading interest later?

He waits 15 years to tell his story? And no one close to him ( family, friends and co-workers ) was ever curious enough to ask him what he saw knowing he was just feet from the assassination?

One thing sounds possible...Witt was running from scrutiny. He knew his actions right at the spot of the shooting were so weird and negative and anti-JFK that this would attract more suspicion than any other Daley Plaza spectator that day.

And it's clear he disliked JFK for many other reasons than appeasement.

Of all those 100's of other Dealey Plaza sidewalk spectators, only one went so far as to perform a physical action type protest let alone a very strange and ominous one. 

For a guy who says he never joined political groups, and had never protested before it is very suspect that he would do something as bold, aggressive and stand-outish as he did, and in front of hundreds of people including dozens of security personnel.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

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

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.

Edited by Denny Zartman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

We should all fold up tent and go home, right?  Its all about conspiracy theorists, and their flawed logic.  And obviously, you are an expert in quantum mechanics. The guy with the umbrella was Witt, he had a simple reason for what he did, and we should all get over it ...  nothing suspicious.  I know I'll regret pushing back and stating this, but you protest way too much:  

Conspiracy theorists have essentially formalized the tendency to assume agency, deliberateness, and sinister motivations in the quirky details of events. Conspiracy theories are often an exercise in anomaly hunting. When anomalies, like the Umbrella Man, are inevitably found it is assumed that they are evidence for a conspiracy. This is, of course, precisely where Conspiracy Land begins.  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?  The fallacy is in confusing a priori probability with posterior probability ...

Your diatribe convinces me there's more to this than meets the eye ... God (and you) only knows what it was.

 

And now Denny is enjoying Lance's post's.  Interesting thread.  Let's don't fold the tent yet, more of the truth can be found.  For the sake of history, our children and grandchildren.

Share this post


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

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)?

Not to my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

If you compare Witt's HSCA testimony to the Umbrella Man's actions

in the Zapruder film, you will see Witt is a fake. It's as simple as that.

Or perhaps you see an example of the documented phenomenon of eyewitness fallibility. Especially considering he was speaking 15 years after the fact. If the evil conspiracy sent Witt to testify and cover for the real TUM wouldn't they make sure he was coached well enough to make his testimony match the Zapruder film? Otherwise, why bother?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My interpretation is that L. Payette suggests looking at the assassination more with a real life, odd things happen all the time common sense versus conspiracy driven hyperventilating over these odd yet explainable details and anomalies and microscopic searching for even more.

And that perhaps many conspiracy believers can't let go of their mind set because they are much more emotionally motivated and locked into this view because of this emotional connection versus those that aren't?

Maybe this take on Payette is too general and even wrong, however it is one that allows me to frame and explain my own alternate interpretation of such a view.

How many times have I stepped back from my lifetime interest and study of the JFK assassination ( though always off and on ) and asked myself why I keep this interest and whether it might be more emotion based than I was aware of.   

Was I purposely blocking myself from considering the event with a more objective common sense view versus a conspiracy one that may be based on my admitted personal view of the world we live in as much more corrupt than the average person believes it is?

To a point, I can't say I wasn't.

But over the years I keep coming back to a realization that when one studies all the facts about the JFK event and the main and close to main characters involved that "the real common sense view" is that there are simply too many contradictory facts, too many contradictory testimonies, too many contradictory and suspicious backgrounds, too many illogical actions by so many involved  ( thousands in number ) that even a totally emotionally detached person with just a half-way curious mind and interest in the world's most impacting historical events would be FORCED to consider this event and the official record finding of it with more suspicion than not.

Conspiracy believers regards this particular event never needed to obsessively hunker over a microscope to find proof and justification for their concluding view.

There is and always has been a mountain of conspiracy suggesting evidence, credible person testimony and background information so huge no one ever needed any visual enhancements to see it.  In fact, you have to make a ridiculously illogical effort to drive around it and/or keep pretending it doesn't exist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


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

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 maybe he was hoping to hear a news report in order to get more information about the tragedy he had just witnessed.

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...