Mark Stapleton

are those that oppose more money for depressed areas and job retraining,AND THEY ARE POWERFUL AND ARTICULATE.they campaign on a platform of so called individual initiative, and talk darkly about socialism. AND THEY HATE THE EFFORTS WE ARE MAKING.

quote]

One other thing, just who do you suppose Kennedy is refering to in the above quote? As it seems to go much further than simply describing GOP opponents. It also hints at efforts to lable JFK a "communist" and traitor, thereby legitimising his assassination.

Steve,

One would think he was referring to the Republican Party but it could also be a veiled reference to the (1963) existing power structure. "They" were obviously listening and this speech was just another nail in JFK's coffin.

Interesting stuff, Steve. Overall, it was an interesting reform pledge, although not a lot of meat on the bones. JFK probably would have delivered, or would have given it a decent shot.

Brendan,

Welcome to the Forum. I agree that Bill Greer's efforts in Dallas were sub par.

You've answered a question I posed earlier. It was Bill Greer driving in Tampa. Thanks for that.

Mark,

I agree it would be suicidal for Iran to launch a nuclear attack against Israel. But setting off a nuclear device in a Tel Aviv pizza parlor would be a different story. Or in a Los Angeles or Chicago pizza parlor. Iran is a terrorist state and does not need nuclear devices (with or without false trails leading to Pakistan or North Korea or wherever).

The U.S. is also a terrorist state, of course, so it's terrorist vs. terrorist, like the old spy vs. spy bit in Mad Magazine. But I don't like being caught in the damn middle. So I'm in favor of Israel keeping the balance of power over there. Which I think it can do without our help, though I'm sure the Bush regime is going to insist on helping anyway. (For Israel to act alone would be politically incorrect or something.)

Ron

Ron,

I don't see why Iran or any other hostile country would need to obtain a critical mass (ie.a nuclear reaction) in order to wipe out a pizza parlor or a city block. It could be done with high explosives now. In fact, a dirty bomb (high explosives packed with fresh or even depleted uranium) could evacuate a city easily, widespread radiation poisoning spreading with the wind. Depleted uranium could be purchased from countries like North Korea.

I think nuclear weapons are intended for massive explosions, like Hiroshima, only more powerful today by many orders of magnitude. I've read that the Russians had experimental small scale nuclear weapons but I think it's a lot of trouble to make them and conventional explosives or dirty bombs can do the damage anyway.

I agree the US and Iran both possess traits of terrorist states. But 'terrorist states' already possess nuclear weapons. That's why its impossible to logically justify the US having 10,000 nuclear warheads and Iran none. It leaves Iran and other Arab states with terrorism as the only option. The sense of injustice and oppression only feeds on itself, spurred on by fundamentalist fervor, until all that's left is a nation of terrorists.

I believe if Iran had nuclear weapons, America and Israel would have to show more respect to the other nations in the region and I'm optimistic enough to believe that the whole region might start to cool down a little.

On the other hand, invading Iran will only enflame an already precarious situation in the region, with the hope of any meaningful reconciliation with the west receding out of sight, if it hasn't done so already. FWIW.

I detect real desperation in the Bush Government's newest global stunt: stopping Iran's nuclear plans.

Stopping Iran's nuclear plans may be the only legitimate goal the Bush regime has. Iran has been in the terrorism business for decades, apparently for the fun of it. We should let them build nuclear bombs? But it is Israel's more immediate concern (I'm sure that the first nuclear bombs Iran builds will have Israeli place names written on them), and I imagine Israel will have to take care of it. Bush doesn't have enough troops to police Iraq, much less invade Iran.

Don't fall for that old chestnut, Ron. If Iran attacks Israel with a nuclear weapon, it's the end for Iran. It's suicide. Underground shelters won't save the leadership, because the whole region will be rendered a toxic, radioactive wasteland which will probably encompass many of their Arab neighbours. They're not going to see themselves and their country destroyed just to destroy Israel no matter how colorful their rhetoric, IMO.

The real problem for Israel and America is that if another middle eastern country acquires nuclear capability, they won't be able to throw their weight around in the region so much. America wouldn't dare invade a country with a nuclear capability, like North Korea. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent, IMO, and Israel and America know it. They don't wan't the balance of power to be altered, that's why they may pre-emptively attack Iran to prevent it.

They're prepared to endure the greatly increased risk of terrorism which will result from such an action. It will keep the terrorist bogeyman alive and, when it occurs, provide them with a dubious type of retrospective justification for their actions.

Mark,

I don't know if and when any merger occurred. Rio Grande National Life Insurance Company was in business for ages, till it merged with Kentucky Central in 1967. Meanwhile Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Company continues to exist, it did not "become" Rio Grande. At least there is a company named Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Company presently based in Illinois. That seems a rather unusual name for two different companies to have.

With the dearth of info on the Web about Guarantee Reserve (most of the sites I found had to do with annual records of complaints about insurance companies), one would have to go to the company itself to ask about its history (and if anyone there happens to remember anything about Louie Steven Witt).

Ron

Ron,

The Companies could continue to operate as separate entities while still being associated Companies, as far as I'm aware. Corporations Law is very technical and I'm probably over my head already, but just the fact that a possible connection has been raised makes me suspicious about who had a controlling interest in both Companies in 1963.

A "permanent military presence in the Gulf region" was part of the PNAC agenda from its inception, and Kerry stated in the 2004 presidential debates that 14 permanent bases were being built in Iraq, a statement that no one saw any need to comment on or rebut.

Built by Halliburton of course.

Yes, they're building bases alright, on a grand scale. The costs are high and rising:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0214-33.htm

Maybe these geniuses in the Bush camp are realising that such spending can't be justified when the popularity of the excursion and the Government are jointly plunging, especially since it's the US taxpayer footing the bill. The way it's going, the Government will end up in such a financial mess that the Corporations may have to buy it out. In a decade's time I see members of Congress being required to wear the appropriate corporate logo.

I agree with John Dolva. We're watching the disintegration of the Bush Government and attention must be focussed on this unfolding catastrophe. The interests of the Bush Government and the American people are diverging rapidly and it has the potential to seriously destabilise the US. If this occurs, the ramifications won't just be felt in the US.

I detect real desperation in the Bush Government's newest global stunt: stopping Iran's nuclear plans. Unlike 1981, when Iraq's nuclear facility was sticking out like a sore thumb, Iran could have facilities hidden or partially underground. Bush will have to invade Iran to ensure success. What mandate will he have for this?

Prior to Trafficante stumbling into the Teamsters pension fund through Ragano [working for Hoffa], it appears that a lot of the casinos and hotels built by the syndicate were fronted by a number of insurance companies. I don't know if anyone has ever done research into the names of the companies and which contributed to what project - however, investments in Nevada are interesting, but begs the question on Cuba. The fact that RFK was being informed and that then Senator Raymond Baker was pushing investigations just adds fuel to the fire.

Lee,

FWIW there was some connection between the Guarantee Reserve Life Insurance Company, which according to the doc you posted was being investigated in the early 1960s for allegedly lending money to Giancana, Rosselli, and Marcello, and the Rio Grande National Life Insurance Company, the employer in 1963 of Louie Steven Witt, the HSCA’s Umbrella Man.

This is evident from a post I found, through Google, in an insurance forum that refers to both companies, as follows:

“my mother just asked me to check into old life insurance policies she purchased and ‘paid up’ on me and my three sibliings.... she first purchased them under a company called Guarantee Reserve that became Rio Grande National Life that became Kentucky Central....”

I don’t believe Guarantee Reserve “became” Rio Grande National Life, as the latter had been around for a century or more, before merging with Kentucky Central in 1967, and Guarantee Reserve is apparently still around (relocated from Indiana to Illinois). But obviously, based on the life insurance policies referred to, Guarantee Reserve and Rio Grande National were somehow affiliated.

Ron

Ron, et al,

I think you've discovered a possible link there between the mob and Louie Witt.

It would be very interesting to find out when the buyout or merger of Guarantee Reserve and Rio Grande occured. If Guarantee Life was a mob firm, it might have been owned by another layer of non-reporting Companies, but a decent corporate lawyer could probably trace its ownership.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Mr. Witt was an employee of a mob controlled Company?

Lee,

I agree. It's unfortunate that this thread has degenerated into name calling.

I have to confess I have little knowledge of the processes involved in photo enhancement. Fortunately there are some here with the technical skills. The original you posted is a good example of what can be done. I think your suggestion would be well worth trying if originals can be found.

p.s. Wouldn't Mary Moorman's family have the originals--or did someone buy them?

I believe that this is a telling resemblance, including the same hairstyle 15 years later:

I calls 'em like I sees 'em and believe that Witt was UM, just like I think Rip was at Main and Houston.

thanks to the HSCA, we know nothing about.

thanks to the HSCA, we know nothing about what Witt looked like in 1963. Isn't that the tiebreaker? If Witt was chosen, due to something in his background, to come forward and pretend he was UM, it stands to reason he was also chosen because he could pass for a more aged version of UM. If he was real, shouldn't we have 1963 photos of him to compare to UM. Maybe he was fat in 1963.

We know enough about Witt's background to qualify him as someone who could use an extra fifty thousand. Show me a thirtysomething married man, with only a middling income and children to raise and support, who could not use a nice injection of cash into his stressful life.

Good points. Although the facial resemblance is there, not enough additional evidence has surfaced to support the assumption that Witt is UM. We don't know what he looked like in '63 and information regarding his background is fragmentary at best. He just appears out of nowhere in 1978 with his aging umbrella, recites a story largely inconsistent with the film and photographic record, and then disappears again. His questioning by the HSCA could hardly be described as intensive and it left important issues unresolved, IMO. And he wouldn't speak to researchers.

I believe UM was involved. I believe a flechette was discharged to immobilise JFK. As you say Ron, this explains the throat wound and Kennedy's failure to react to the ambush. For Witt to be involved in the assassination, he must be a man of great hubris to brazenly front the authorities 15 years later and lie about his role. I don't believe Witt is a man of such hubris, so I don't believe he was the infamous umbrella man. The entire circus was concocted to kill the flechette idea and the HSCA were happy to participate, IMO.

Witt's testimony is bizarre. In addition to the confusion regarding whether or not he stood on the curb/retaining wall etc before the shots, there's also his statement that he sat somewhere on the grassy knoll prior to the shots. It would be interesting to see if any of the photos taken prior to the assassination confirm this (and whether DCM can also be seen).

The questioning of the witness by the members of the committee is also strange, IMO. The questions asked by the 'gentleman from Connecticut', Mr. McKinney, seem designed to make Witt confirm there was nothing unusual occuring near the picket fence or retaining wall area of the grassy knoll, as well as exculpate Witt. Additionally, little is known of Witt's background and little asked about it by the committee. This makes the task of determining the witness's credibility much harder. Again, the whole thing stinks. UM played a role in the assassination, IMO. Whether Witt is the UM is another matter.

The entire thing may have been a charade designed to bury the flechette issue.

My suspicious nature tells me that the assumption that UM and Witt are the same person should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Having said that, I agree it would be interesting to speak to him if he's still around. Maybe he'll join the Forum. I'm joking. He won't speak. That stuff about hurting his family, etc doesn't wash. People are not going to start throwing fruit at his family if he tells researchers what he saw that day. A harmless demonstration with an umbrella 43 years ago, albeit unfortunately timed, is not a hanging offence, IMO. Something doesn't add up there.

He wouldn't relish explaining how he, an apparently ordinary citizen, reacted like a person trained in covert operations instead of like an ordinary Joe. Same for his buddy.

FWIW, I think Lee Forman's idea about another scan of the fenceline might be worth trying. There's nothing to lose and it might yield something.

Thomas and Ron,

Is Witt still around? He said he was 53 in 1978, which would make him 80 or 81 now.

Others have pointed out the inconsistencies between Witt's testimony and the films and photographs of DP. I don't know if his background was properly checked. Witt's testimony is below. And if as some suspect, including me, that it was all a lot of rubbish then Thomas's question is important: Who was he working for during the HSCA?

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/witt.htm

It has occurred to me the possible reason why UM calmly sat down on the curb right after the shooting. It was not to access the situation, though sitting down of course gave him and DCM time to do so.

If UM had folded his umbrella and immediately began moving somewhere after the shots, he would have naturally drawn the attention of cops and others by having what could look to be a rifle in his hand. So he sat down, and laid down the folded umbrella under him in the gutter of the curb, till it was safe to get up with the umbrella and calmly walk away.

That's exactly what I would have down if I had a long dark object in my hand and I had somehow been involved in the president having just been shot while going by me.

I agree with you Ron. If you think about it, the way those two behaved after the assassination was exactly how someone involved and trained to avoid attracting attention to themselves would behave, IMO.

If they were innocent bystanders, why didn't they react like the others ie. run to the knoll, look for a policeman, ask others where the shots came from etc. The sense of collective shock and anger seemed to build quickly among the others. Why weren't these guys eager to explain to the authorities what they saw? They just saw the President get his head blown off from a few feet away, for heaven's sake. They were the closest to the action but they both simply sat down, then walked away in opposite directions and disappeared into obscurity.

The Louie Witt story to the HSCA stinks. I think we've been looking at two of the participants in the assassination all this time and it seems quite obvious that any other explanation doesn't hold water.

Very interesting, Bill.

There was obviously something very strange going on at Andrews. Makes one suspect the whole log could be bogus.

That's incredible, Bill. What lunatic would throw the Andrews Base log in the trash? He should have been busted to latrine duty.

I have, for the last few months been conducting research into the possible role played by individual members of the JCS, in the assassination. The above three names are of special interest to me, and I have been trying to assertain their whereabouts on the day. I know that Lemnitzer was in Germany, but I hope that members can help me be a bit more specific. One report has Lemay attending the Bethesda autopsy, standing at the back smoking a cheroot, but I now forget where I read this, and can find no official documents that support this. Any help from the esteemed faculty here will be much appreciated..Steve.

Hi Steve,

Who's Craig? You mean Taylor, maybe.

As far as I know, JCS Chairman Max Taylor was in a meeting with foreign delegates at the Pentagon.

Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay was apparently in Michigan visiting relatives.

I'm unsure about Earle Wheeler, David McDonald and David Shoup. They might have been with Maxwell Taylor at the Pentagon. I'm sure Forum members can help with further info.

Hello me old mate, thanks for the information on Taylor and Lemay. The person I mean is Brig General William H Craig. Senior project officer op Mongoose (Cuban op) Head of group W, CIA conected to Mongoose. Joint Author of "Northwoods"with Ly Lemnitzer. He was a disinformation agent, and Black ops man par excellence...Steve.

Steve,

Ah. Brig. General William Craig--of course.

You know, it's been suggested that the man photographed walking past the tramps in Dealey Plaza has a resemblance to General Maxwell Taylor. Although others suggest that this could just be a symptom of 'post assassination prognostication'.

I have, for the last few months been conducting research into the possible role played by individual members of the JCS, in the assassination. The above three names are of special interest to me, and I have been trying to assertain their whereabouts on the day. I know that Lemnitzer was in Germany, but I hope that members can help me be a bit more specific. One report has Lemay attending the Bethesda autopsy, standing at the back smoking a cheroot, but I now forget where I read this, and can find no official documents that support this. Any help from the esteemed faculty here will be much appreciated..Steve.

Hi Steve,

Who's Craig? You mean Taylor, maybe.

As far as I know, JCS Chairman Max Taylor was in a meeting with foreign delegates at the Pentagon.

Air Force Chief Curtis LeMay was apparently in Michigan visiting relatives.

I'm unsure about Earle Wheeler, David McDonald and David Shoup. They might have been with Maxwell Taylor at the Pentagon. I'm sure Forum members can help with further info.

A very fine post, John.

The contrast between JFK and LBJ and their respective agendas is well illustrated. On one hand there's JFK who took foreign policy very seriously and was prepared to do the painstaking work of finding a solution which would be satisfactory to all sides, as he did in Laos. His knowledge of foreign policy and ability to listen to and empathise with other nations appeared to be bearing fruit at the time of his death--evidenced by Castro offering a concession like that in order to continue the Cuban-American dialogue. This showed that JFK had earned the trust and respect of foreign leaders, regardless of ideology.

Then there's LBJ, who wasted no time frittering away that hard earned goodwill which JFK had established by behaving merely as an agent for the MICIC, with little consideration for the long term ramifications for his country. I doubt he understood or even cared about foreign policy--it was just a vehicle employed to enrich his friends and benefactors. Ditto for his tax policy.

November 22, 1963 was a very bad day for America.

_________________________________________________________

[sEE POST #13, SAME THREAD, ABOVE]

[....] Prouty says he never thought of the weapon again until shortly after the assassination. "I knew the rules of Presidential protection and I knew that no one along the parade route was ever permitted to open an umbrella as the President's car went by. They let that happen. Why this omission? Why that umbrella? [....]

_________________________________________________________

OK, I'm just wondering... What should the SS and/or local law enforcement have done when they saw the guy opening the umbrella? Tackled him? Shot him?? Any ideas? Duke?

Two other questions:

(1) Just who WAS Louie Steven Witt, anyway?

(2) In the Z film, is the umbrella "tracking" JFK before, during, and/or after the UM shoots JFK in the throat with the flechette/dart? I can understand why "before" and "during" (obviously), but why "after"? No biggie; just curious.

FWIW, Thomas

_____________________________________________________________

Thomas,

Good posts. Witt surfaced in 1978 during the HSCA and announced himself as the umbrella man. There's a strong resemblance. Witt and his innocent umbrella obviously took the heat out of the debate about the flechette. But all the questions remain: why did he wait 15 years? why wasn't he questioned at the scene because, as you point out, opening an umbrella near the Presidential limo was forbidden? where did DCM go, and why hasn't he come forward (unless he died shortly afterward), why was the umbrella rotated in such a fashion? and why weren't they ducking for cover at the sound of the shots?

There's a 1985 photo of Harari showing some resemblance. (Mark Stapleton)

Hi Mark,

Is there any chance you can post that photograph?

James

James,

Apologies--I don't have a scanner. Hopefully MCP will post it. It's hard to really tell how close the resemblance is, considering the 22 year difference, but it's quite similar hair, hairline and nose.

Should have looked first, I guess. Sprague, Schweiker and Prouty made the case for the flechette back in 1975. A good summary is here:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

The dissolving flechette explains the small throat entry wound. It also explains why TUM and DCM just walked away (after briefly sitting together on the kerb), not telling the police and FBI what they witnessed. It explains why the umbrella was "rotated", as seen in the Z-Film, as the limo progressed down Elm Street. It also explains why UM was the only person photographed in DP to be carrying an umbrella. There's nothing innocent about their presence in DP, IMO. So who's Louie Witt?

Ron,

I guess it makes sense to immobilise JFK to make the headshot easier, they may have assumed the unlikelihood of scoring a headshot with the first volley. The poison dart seems a bit James Bond-like, although this doesn't preclude the possibility that it was used. Btw, how do you know the CIA had it--has an ex-officer stated this? Had it been used in other covert ops, prior to '63?

p.s. have you recieved your copy of MCP's book?

Ron wrote:

I would wager that the Dallas cops who planned the motorcycle escort, only to have the SS veto their plan the night before, saw it as security stripping.

Ron, what is your basis for that assertion?

I should add that rereading the article and examining the photo, there were two secret service agents riding on the trunk of the JFK limo in Tampa. Of course, this must be viewed in conjunction with the disclosure in "Ultimate Sacrifice" that security was extremely tight inm Tampa because there had been rumors of an assasination plot in Tampa.

Here is another photo of the Tampa limousine:

http://www.big13.net/Tommy%20Eure/tommy_eu...0%20seconds.htm

To Mark:

The fact that Dillon was the Secretary of the Treasury does nothing to make him a suspect in the JFK case. As I said before, by going up the chain of command from the head of the Secret Service to the Cabinet member, one would by the same logic continue up the chain of command and viola, JFK himself is a suspect!

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that Dillon involved himnself in the day-to-day operations of the Secret Service?

Surely suspicions would have been raised if Dillon had given an order to the Dallas Secret Serrvice Agents without going through the normal SS channels. Surely had that happened one of the SS agents "would have talked". And if you think Dillon went through the SS chain of command, do you contend that the head of the SS was himself involved in the plot?

This whole premise is so ridiculous it is no wonder that the news and history establishment does not take the assassination research community seriously!

Tim,

The link you provided in post #55 undermines your own argument (excellent photos and story btw). Tony Zappone himself recalls that the Tampa motorcade travelled so fast that he almost missed getting any snaps of JFK at all--in contrast to the slow turn and crawl into Elm Street in Dallas. Also, the photos of the Tampa motorcade indicate that it travelled past few, if any, clusters of high rise buildings--in contrast to the several high rise buildings with open windows which partially surrounded Dealey Plaza. The plaza almost resembles an amphitheatre, with many potentially lethal vantage points. By arguing that there was no security stripping, you're claiming that the SS were absolutely stupid. I'm surprised, as this must therefore raise a question concerning Dillon's competence in discharging his duties.

A couple of questions, if anyone can assist:

1. Who was the driver of the Presidential limo in Tampa? Was it Bill Greer?

2. Did Ken O'Donnell accompany JFK on the Tampa trip?

Just thought I might run this past the Forum again. Would anyone know the answers to these two questions. Dallek's bio of JFK doesn't mention the Tampa trip and I've loaned my copy of Manchester to someone.

I just recieved Michael Collins Piper's book "Final Judgement" (thanks again for that Michael). There's a photos section and in it the author suggests that UM might have been Mossad hitman Michael Harari. There's a 1985 photo of Harari showing some resemblance. Does anyone have a circa 1963 photo of Harari? He was the team leader of the Mossad squad which went after the Munich terrorists in the early seventies.

I just had another look at Ron Ecker's excellent piece on UM and DCM on his website (see Ron's earlier post for the link) and one thing I find strange is that if these guys were signalers for the gunmen, why weren't they worried about getting hit in the crossfire? (both are quite close to the limo). One photo shows DCM standing with arm raised aloft after JFK has already been hit. He doesn't appear to be flinching or ducking. FWIW, I'm not persuaded by Louie Witt's coming forward 15 years later as Umbrella Man. Does the idea of a fleshette or poison dart fired from the umbrella to immobilise JFK stand up to scrutiny?