Bernice Moore

Tommy, your links do not work, can you post again thanks.. i got it thanks...b

double deleted...b

David,

Are you kidding me right now? What kind of a loon would:

While on a coffee break, hear about a protest with umbrellas in Phoenix or Tucson that was related to a Neville Chamberlain issue from "Hitler days" which had occurred at least 25 years earlier--and then, not being educated himself about the significance to Munich, and all the rest, connect the dots to JFK's father, Joseph P Kennedy, formerly the Ambassador to the Court of Saint James (something of which Witt had no previous knowledge prior to this coffee break), who was an American Isolationist (a term with which Witt was unfamiliar, but no matter)--STILL decide to imitate that protest himself in the immediate vicinity of the assassination in Dallas?

[snip]

I think you vastly underestimate the amount of hatred towards JFK--whether because of his Catholicism or his father's politics--in the Dallas area, and with the Dallas Morning News repeatedly running stories with a spin that made it sound like the federal government was the enemy, and that the Civil War had ended just weeks before.

It does not surprise me in the least that there could be "trickle down" in such an environment, and that the symbolism of the umbrella (and equating that with appeasement) would reach Steven Witt--who would then be naive enough (and foolish enough) to do what he did. If there had been no assassination, and Dealey Plaza was not ground zero in this affair, Witt would be an unnoticed and unreported footnote to history.

Instead, and because of what he did and where he did it, his presence and his behavior is being invested with unnecessary mystery, and his every action put under a microscope.

That's my opinion.

IMHO: It seems obvious to me that there are so many other more important issues to focus upon.

HOWEVER, had I been the HSCA investigator, I would probably have sought corroborating affidavits from at least one third party (e.g., his wife, or a close friend). If Witt spoke of what he did to his dentist (and that's how I heard of it, back in the 1970s), I'm would assume his family (and perhaps some close friends) knew about it, too.

I continue to be baffled why anyone who has given serious thought to how this conspiracy functioned--and here I am referring to the "shooting conspiracy" (and not any other aspect of this case)--would continue to entertain the notion that stationing a man with an umbrella at curbside could possibly serve a legitimate function in this murder plot. But apparently some do. So now certain folks are off and running looking for photos of someone with an umbrella, in Arizona, seeking to verify Witt's story. But what about something that is far more relevant and seems far more significant: that visible in certain frames of the Zapruder film, on the south side of Elm Street and situated at about the location where the car dramatically slowed (if not halted, as I believe to have been the case)--there were one or two yellow stripes painted on the curb. Such stripes, located on the south curb (and easily visible to the driver of the vehicle) could easily have functioned as a "fail safe" signal of some sort. Certainly, these yellow stripes ought to be the central focus of any investigation seeking evidence of a "signal" being transmitted to the driver of the car. And not Steven Witt and his umbrella. But no doubt the colorful image of Steven Witt, waving his umbrella, and supposedly "calling in more fire" (as if this were an artillery strike) will live on in the world of urban legend, while the two yellow stripes on the south curb will continue to be ignored.

DSL

David these are Jacks work; the yellow stripes; take care..b

anyone can go to the thread if interested, sorry no intention of breaking thread,..b

http://educationforu...=1

FWIW, I did a wee bit of digging this morning to see if there's anything I'd missed re Umbrella Man. This immediately popped up. According to this article by Jerry Organ, Witt was not pulled from nowhere and propped up by Blakey as Umbrella Man, but outed by Penn Jones...

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

If this was indeed the case, then Jones would have to have been duped into outing Witt and IDing him as the Umbrella Man. Does anyone here believe this? Really?

Hi Pat; FWIW...Here is a photo of Witts umbrella taken by the commission....b ps and here is the umbrella in Dealey Plaza..i am thinking the Dealey umbrella shows 8...imo.b

he was 53 years old when he testified,at the HSCA ,, that means he was 38 at Dealey......in Dallas that day, if as i believe Jim d posted the Chamberlain incident was 30 years or so previously, that would mean he was only 8 when that occurred with Joe Kennedy, so imo I still cannot see anyone expecting any others to know what holding up an umbrella would mean, in 1963 to a motorcade for jfk, never mind that he expected that jfk would instantly know, i think probably jfk had many other things on his mind than something that took place 30 years ago......that he was not involved in, true his Dad was but, i think that might have had to have been pointed out to him.....imo...as far as Penn goes yes he could have been duped in fact if he was that somehow would be no surprise...is there any documentation by the dentist who gave the info out that um was Witt, something positive, or just say so...thanks all.....b

Let's go burgundy

Fine. Marry up his comment regarding the screeching of tyres with the other witnesses.

I would love to see a program based on restoring the reputation of witnesses who have been unduly smeared.

Start one then.

<B>[Cue the Dennis Hopper character in "Apocalypse Now"]

"Who's gonna tell 'em?...

Me??

WRONG!!"

Such a program would require a more presentable front man, someone the MSM couldn't impeach on character issues -- not that I think being a punk rock gambling house Folsom St. degenerate is any kind of actual character issue. </B>

And we get it.

Yeah? JFK was shot in the back at T3 and the round did not exit; he was shot in the throat from the front and the round did not exit.

Once you get that you're on your way, in my book, at any rate.

You believe Witt.

I believe Rosemary Willis, and her descriptions of Witt's action match Witt's.

I believe Rosemary Willis and her family have been trying to tell the world that they saw guys dressed as cops shoot at Kennedy, but they wanted to lead normal lives in Texas and decided to tell the world in a round about way:

From the HSCA summary of the Rosemary Willis testimony:

http://www.history-m...Vol12_0006a.htm

Ms. Willis said she was aware of three shots being fired. She gave no information about the direction or location of the shots, but stated that her father became upset when the policemen in the area appeared to run away from where he said the shots came from; that is, they were running away from the grassy knoll.

And JFK wore tailored shirts and was hit with a blood soluble round.

<B>

The former is historical fact, the latter was the informed speculation of the autopsists the night of the autopsy.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's 1978 HSCA sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's 1978 HSCA sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

[Cue Hannibal Lechter in "Silence of the Lambs"]

"It's all there in those papers, Clarisse. Everything you need to catch them, (these men) you seek."

</B>

Just not from an umbrella.

This is a good place to start a study of the subject.

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

It's all there in the case-file/historical record, Lee, everything we need to catch those men we seek. For the historical record, if not for actual justice.

LINDA MADE AN INTERESTING POST, OBSERVATION RE WITT'S TESTIMONY, IN ANOTHER THREAD BACK IN MARCH........http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2783&view=findpost&p=239198

sorry caps, might be interested in...thanks .titled umbrellaman......

http://educationforu...?showtopic=2783.b page 4 post number 53..

i am copying and pasting it, linda, so it does not get lost, ok..i hope, thanks........''

Either the transcription of the HSCA testimony was wrong, or else the witness' memory was bad. The Rio Grande National Life Insurance Co. building was at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elm Street and N. Field, not Beal. The insurance company (Witt's employer in 1963) was owned and operated by the Baxter family, who moved to Dallas "in 1939, [when] the Rio Grande Building in Harlingen was traded for the old Linz Building on Main and Martin streets [1608 Main] in Dallas to become the company's new home office building." They built a new building in Dallas in about 1950 in the 1200 block of Elm; it was torn down for the Renaissance Tower. It would have been about half a mile from Dealey Plaza. ''

I just told you how I see it. I do not know how that could be accomplished-honestly.

:lol:Perhaps a Forum called; LEAVE YOUR EGOS AT THE DOOR ??????? per Roberts post; :lol: :blink: or........THE NO NAME FORUM.. B)

Thanks for your post Robert!

It was an interesting Lancer conference this year. Sorry alot of folk missed it. According to what I heard, Larry Hancock is desirous for all of us (CTs) to present a united front for the 50th, stating that even if we don't agree with some things, that we all agree on one thing--it was a conspiracy and we need to proceed from that. (What a great idea, Larry, but gosh, i don't know).

After reading all of the posts here, and noting that what was said on the video interview is seen by some as anathema to "the cause"( or at least that is the way I am reading some of these things), I believe that the unity that Hancock desires will never be accomplished.

thanks kathy for that bit, i have found no report on the conference as of yet, though there may be one, it would be grand would it not, if all could, but then such as yourself asking for unity and then giving your negative assumption, only adds to that not also...b

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory.

Fetzer believes it is this type of evidence that can be used to buy the American Public into easily understanding the nature of the conspiracy. He says this and then instructs you to read 15 books and go view John Costella's numerous internet videos. I say anyone who thinks these items can be used to buy large groups of people into beliveing there was a conspiracy is as mad as a hatter. Even if they're true...

Regards

Lee

Researchers bashing other researchers is a lose-lose proposition, irrespective of the validity of the reasoning processes which "rationalize" it. I have books by James Fetzer and Josiah Thompson....

and both have made significant contributions......we [the Forum] have a large audience, and when this stuff goes on

it hurts all of us, because we are recognized as a community, however fragmented it is. I have yet

to see an example of this sort of stuff going on, in which the phrase "check your ego at the door," wouldn't have

solved the issue before it was started.

:DThanks Robert, in fact, i have been waiting for a word from you, you make sense..imo..just a memory, when Rich had his forum going, he use to have that motto, on the front page, or pages, to leave your ego at the door.......the other i recall was do not p/ in his potted plant on the way out.....just a bit of a grin for a wee break...thanks... :blink: :blink:

Robert,

The fact that you are not persuaded of Z-film alteration by the evidence presented and the arguments thus far offered does not mean that studying that subject is "a farce"!!!

All it means is that you remain unpersuaded. I have never seen any of YOUR research on the subject. I do not know if you have even done any, but I suspect you have not.

I don't believe that you have even seriously tested the research of others. You simply find the "idea of alteration" to not be to your liking, I suppose, which is apparently enough

motivation for you to then pontificate, rendering a judgment of dismissal. But, that does not persuade either. You have a lot of work to do if you really want to contribute to this

aspect of the case.

DR.Salerian's REPORT;

Alan Salerian believes that "President Kennedy's throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison," which paralyzed the President and rendered him

"immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull."

http://www.historica...dence.net/?p=60

He also posits that it was a smiling Lucien Conein in Dealey Plaza, captured in a photograph. A.J. Weberman has offered evidence that it was not Conein.

Also:

"On November 22, the first exhibition of Dr. Alen Salerian's paintings will happen in a private venue in honor and remembrance of President John F. Kennedy and his ideals. His assassination on the date in 1963, has been the backdrop and catalyst to this emotionally sweeping visual homage the painter calls JFK: Symbols on Canvas.

Copyright © 2008 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

The postmortem examination of President Kennedy is invalid: The evidence

Alen J. Salerian

Washington Center for Psychiatry, 5225 Wisconsin Avenue # 104, Washington, District of columbia 20015, USA

Received 29 May 2008;

accepted 1 June 2008.

Available online 20 August 2008.

Summary

This paper proves that President Kennedy’s postmortem examination is a sham. The sham nature of the presidential autopsy is based upon several findings incompatible with human anatomy, practice of medicine and Newton’s second law “an object acted upon by a constant force will move with constant acceleration in the direction of the force”. We review the autopsy report and other assassination evidence and demonstrate that the postmortem examination is invalid.

http://www.historicalevidence.net/?f

San Diego, CA, March 21, 2009 – Noted Washington psychiatrist Dr. Alen J. Salerian presented a lecture titled “The Double Murders of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald Are Not Good for America: The Evidence” at the 27th Annual Symposium of the American College of Forensic Psychiatry in San Diego.

Dr. Salerian’s presentation included a review and analysis of documents from President Kennedy’s medical records from Parkland Hospital in Dallas, ballistic evidence, witness reports, photographic and film images from the scene of the assassination and Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

The evidence Dr. Salerian presented included the following:

1. President Kennedy suffered three wounds, none of which was inflicted by Oswald.

2. President Kennedy’s throat wound was caused by a flechette-transported poison, probably with a main chemical or chemicals that are d-tubocurarine, or a d-tubocurarine-like substance with rapid paralyzing action. In 1975, CIA Director William Colby’s testimony at a U.S. Senate hearing before the Senate’s Special Intelligence Committee described such a neurotoxin.

3. Because of the paralysis caused by the poison, President Kennedy was immobilized and speechless for several seconds before a frontal entry bullet shattered his skull.

4. A second bullet struck President Kennedy with posterior entry 6.5 inches below his neckline and was lodged in his chest.

Contact: Alan Hermesch, 202-210-6262, 301-365-4762,

http://educationforu...showtopic=15058

Dr.Salerian's Video Report...

I have completed searches but cannot find the pages of his report, does anyone have a link or the 4 pages i believe it said it was, thanks.b

Someone isn't thinking this through. The limo had to slow dramatically as it came to a stop. Some witnesses

saw the whole event, others only part--for dozens of different reasons, including their locations and multiple

distractions. So some saw it slow dramatically, while others saw it slow dramatically and come to a stop. The

witness reports are highly consistent once you factor in differences in location and perspective. That so many

reported it came to a complete stop is the key. Why would anyone report that if it hadn't happened? This is a

highly salient feature of the situation, one in which witnesses are 98% accurate and 98% complete with respect

to their recollections. Some saw all of it, others only part. There is no mystery here. Plus there is nothing in

the extant film that resembles either dramatic slowing or a complete stop. They all impeach the extant film.

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory?

Regards

Lee

It is difficult to sift through the "slowed down" witnessess to "almost stopped" witnesses, to "stopped" witnesses. But the sifting has to be done, and I fear there is a great hesitancy to do this. By the way, I subjectively would link the "almost stopped" witnesses with the "stopped" witnesses as being more corroborative of each other than the "slowed down" witnesses, but that's just an opinion. Based upon Toni Foster, Hargis,Chaney, the Newmans, and a few others, I believe the limo stopped momentarily, for such a short time that others might have said it "almost stopped." But that is again my opinion. I also feel insufficient reflection/study on the matter has hurt the research community and progress on the case. Best, Daniel

Dr.JIM fwiw...here is a photo of the RUSSIAN UMBRELLA WEAPON, they used.....take care b.. P.S also a gif showing, the movement of DCM's hand he clutches and then reclutches, similar to a fist with his hand in the air..he does not wave..pps I think this one shows perhaps more as the the limo is just approaching them, then his hand is raised and clutched.the one marked frame 212.thanks..b

I Have not found the page re the Secret Service rules in motorcades, i have gone through every folder of ss info now, sorry bout that as i do know it did exist, but i have found that apparently Clint Hill was observed by another agent, as eyeing the umbrella man, that is the only mention found, that any of the ss agents regarded the man with an umbrella as being needed to be watched closely during a motorcade, as were men with an over coat, rain coat over their arm, or a cane, which says to me, that the SS were aware that the flechette weapons were available during that time, as they were fired from a gun,umbrella or cane, which were what they were to look out for, so Hill ignored the actions of the umbrella man in raising pumping the umbrella up and down, he was somewhat interested but did not act or move till after he thought he saw jfk slump somewhat and heard a richochet, the lastest ss rule book available on the web is 2002, which is of no use to us now....

Message body

OVERPASSES (AND THE UMBRELLA MAN)-DISTRACTIONS?: From Vince Palamara's the W/C gems....

21 H 564:

DPD Asst. Chief Charles Batchelor---"He [Lawson of the SECRET SERVICE] also stated that we should have men on each railroad and traffic overpass that the presidential party would go under, and that these people should be instructed NOT TO LET ANYONE STAND OVER THE IMMEDIATE PATH OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PARTY." [emphasisi added---not adhered to in Dealey Plaza!]; 4 H 327: Secret Service agent Winston G. Lawson himself testifies that "any citizen", no exceptions, were to be kept off overpasses. In fact, 4 H 351: Lawson testified: "I recall thinking we were coming to an overpass now, so I glanced up to see if it was clear, the way most of them had been, THE WAY ALL OF THEM HAD BEEN UP UNTIL THAT TIME ON THE WAY DOWNTOWN, AND IT WAS NOT...And I was looking for the officer WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN THERE, HAD BEEN REQUESTED TO BE THERE...and I made a kind of motion through the windshield trying to get his attention to move the people from over our path THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN...we were just approaching this overpass when I heard a shot." [emphasis added---was this a visual distraction, as the umbrella man was? In the new Z-film video---the sprocket area---Secret Service agent Clint Hill, in particular, is seemingly transfixed on the umbrella man DURING the initial shooting!]; 2 H 119:

In regards to the video, imo fwiw, i do think Dr.Thompson has done the community a diservice in joining in the latest New York Times continuing effort to smear, guffaw whatever word you want to choose, the CT Community,of which they are well known through the years in doing so at any given opportunity, of which up until now, i believe though there may have been some with previous doubts perhaps of his alliance, it was almost without question, i do think he has hurt his own reputation within said community, more by his actions and comments on the video, than he has hurt the Community, though he has been represented by his book SSID in the past as being a positive CTr , he is after all only one.and will remain so, and the community is a village and not just represented by any one person and has never been, i do not believe that those within that have studied the assassination and have to some degree a knowledge on the subject will be fooled or not for long, by any as they have not been by such as Gary Mack who has tried, playing both sides against the middle, and been tripped up repeatedly during his involvements in L/N documentarys of the past..I personally think that any researcher who would join in with the said NYT would be regarded also in similar fashion, the only time such as the NYT will welcome any well known CTr, or otherwise, is to at least trip him up if possible, and heap some type of scorn on all within, such as the ''wing nut accusation''....but it happened, and with the Drs participation, i was and am very surprised at his unsettling appearance.......imo just one of the community..b....it is like the old saying if you lay down with fleas.......they get you...

It may not matter whether De Witt was the UM or not.I think that De Witt, becomes of some interest if one reads the report into militant right wing groups (5 vols and index 1965 from memory.) There is Elizabeth De Witt (KKK Ohio) and others that may be of interest describing costings and methods to assassinate. If there's no connection so what? if there is, well. As the question of DE Witts role is a question, this may lead to an answer.

John, somewhere, though i have not been able to bring it forth as yet, there is a Secret Service actions report, that if such any umbrella's

were opened along a Presidential parade route or similar or other suspicious actions, the SS would be all over the whomever, so that brings up the question, of the why again, the ss did not move to grab said umbrellaman on elm street........i am still searching, i may contact Vince as he would know, i'm sure it probably is on a report he may have found and issued for us.....thanks..b

John; this is all i have found so far, there is i am quite sure a much clearer report on this from Vince, but...will keep looking.......thanks..b

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2011/03/chapter-6-security-stripping-further.html Agent Rufus Youngblood revealed that the Secret Service was trained to prevent anyone from holding items in their hands that were suspicious in nature, and that, as an example, if during a bright, sun-shiny day, a man is observed wearing a raincoat, the agents are to react promptly. Former Agent George J. McNally specifically mentioned, “an umbrella carried on a sunny day” as something to be suspicious of in his book. However, during the same weather conditions in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, a man is allowed to hold up high an open umbrella---and the agents do nothing...not one agent even mentioned this strange episode. Again, no action was taken against this man, nor was any mention made of him, either written or oral. Ironically, at the James Rowley Beltsville Maryland Secret Service Training Facility, people with umbrellas pop up in mock motorcades to this day!

how can you possibly distinguish positively, between the real DCM AND SO MANY OTHER MEN WEARING DARK CAPS OR HAVING DARK HAIR, AND LIGHT JACKETS WITHIN THOSE SHOTS,in the crowds shown

Bernice,

I can distinguish him as being unique from any others wearing similar clothes, because of the unique to him only bump of an object which some suggest is a Radio, tucked in to the back of his pants, and underneath his jacket.

This bump appears in ALL images,both film and photographs, of DCM from a rear and/or left side view.

Many Thanks, Duncan i will check it out, hope all is well, take care...best b

...that strikes me as odd. As does why the Cuban looking guy would be raising his arm in the air.

Apparently waving at the President during a public motorcade is considered suspicious activity in Jim DiEugenio's eyes. Amazing.

David, if interested, close in on what the cuban does with his hand in a film clip, he is not waving...imo...b

It may not matter whether De Witt was the UM or not.I think that De Witt, becomes of some interest if one reads the report into militant right wing groups (5 vols and index 1965 from memory.) There is Elizabeth De Witt (KKK Ohio) and others that may be of interest describing costings and methods to assassinate. If there's no connection so what? if there is, well. As the question of DE Witts role is a question, this may lead to an answer.

John, somewhere, though i have not been able to bring it forth as yet, there is a Secret Service actions report, that if such any umbrella's

were opened along a Presidential parade route or similar or other suspicious actions, the SS would be all over the whomever, so that brings up the question, of the why again, the ss did not move to grab said umbrellaman on elm street........i am still searching, i may contact Vince as he would know, i'm sure it probably is on a report he may have found and issued for us.....thanks..b

Duncan, thank you for sharing the photo work, but i have a question , how can you possibly distinguish positively, between the real DCM AND SO MANY OTHER MEN WEARING DARK CAPS OR HAVING DARK HAIR, AND LIGHT JACKETS WITHIN THOSE SHOTS,in the crowds shown, AND YES I HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW HIM WITHIN FRAMES SHOT ON HIS JoURNEY sorry caps, down toward the underpass...he does eventually get lost amongst the others imo..and imo becomes lost in the crowd..as all we see is a dark cap , no facal features, and a light jacket........thanks b.

First of all, anything associated with the JFK assassination that appears in the New York Times is going to be 100% disnfo. If researchers don't know that by now, they know nothing. The mainstream media has never aired or published the truth about the assassination, and it still won't, 48 years after the fact.

I think that Jim Fetzer's prediction about Josiah Thompson coming out publicly as an LNer in time for the 50th anniversary is looking more and more likely. That interview could have been given by Bugliosi, Posner or Gary Mack. The "wingnut" reference was ridiculous, and reveals again where Thompson's true sympathies lie. I'm betting we'll never hear him refer to Bugliosi or any other LNer in such a disparaging way, on television or in misleading interviews with mainstream outlets like this.

Witt was not the Umbrella Man. Period. All knowledgable researchers knew this at the time he belatedly appeared on the scene, and gave his laughable HSCA testimony. As I've noted many times on this forum, those of us who care about this case have given way too much ground on issues like this. The suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man hasn't changed over the years. No evidence has come forth to dispel any conspiratorial notions about his curious actions that day. If you accept that Witt was holding that open umbrella in a protest against JFK's father that few, if any, people on the face of the earth would have comprehended, then you might as well believe that Oswald shot JFK because he was sexually inadequate. You might as well believe that JFK's head went backwards because of some heretofore unknown neuro-muscular reaction that defies the laws of physics. And you may as well accept that JFK's shirt and coat both bunched up several inches, matching each other perfectly, which explains a shot from six stories above exiting from a point higher than the entry wound.

I have no faith in the truth ever being exposed about thie case, or any of the other myriad political crimes which have transpired since that day. The corruption in our society is so pervasive, and the idiocracy that has been created in its wake so extensive, that it is doubtful at this point, imho, whether most Americans would even care if the real facts could somehow be explained to them. The 50th anniversary will be a lone nutter celebration, filled with more Sixth Floor Museum-associated t.v. programs, and more assurances from "journalists" who distort the truth for a living, that Oswald definitely acted alone. There won't even be the usual gathering in Dealy Plaza, since the Sixth Floor Museum has somehow been allowed to "reserve" that public area for the day. At this point, it's very hard to be optimistic.

;)Thank you Don, very well put, though I am still optimistic. b

Thank you Christian Frantz; For sharing your detailed work with all, your efforts are appreciated, greatly as a contribution..one nevers knows what new and extensive findings researchers may develop,by given the time,coupled with their dedication and effort, and a show of appreciation by others of such, i wish you all the best of luck with your findings, your work certainly shows a great interest...please continue with your presentation thank you...take care..b

Great work, Bernice, as always. But a dart from the side would not have created a through-and-through hole in the windshield nor the two tiny shrapnel wounds in JFK's face described by Thomas Evan Robinson, which David Mantik has suggested were caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through en route. And the wound to his throat was around its center, not at its side. They existed, but there is no reason to think one was used on JFK.

Pat; finally found it......

http://www.jfk-assas...es/umbrella.php Most of the assassination researchers prefer this first theory. But there is another one that cannot be dismissed. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely.

about 50 of them....b

I agree, that is Cutler's work, though it was apparently powerful enough to do so, but as also mentioned by the mortician Robinson ??? filling the leaking small face wounds that could have been made from windshield glass.........b

here is Charles Senseney,information, the man i understand, who created and made the weapons...fyi..it is in pdf...b

Pat; finally found it......

http://www.jfk-assas...es/umbrella.php Most of the assassination researchers prefer this first theory. But there is another one that cannot be dismissed. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely.

about 50 of them....b

Pat; you may be interested...b

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=k3TNrObZ-o4

i found this on the web, from a popular mechanics article...1962 ..thanks whomever appreciated, on how they worked with the gun as the weapon and directive...

These two go with past research...showing the possible dart and the use of such in a gun as well as umbrella and or cane as mentioned...b

Pat It may be within the info provided at this site...b

http://www.wanttoknow.info/assassinationsnewsarticles

happy thanksgiving...

hi pat; i did reply but it is not showing now.......??.....no you are correct he did not happen to mention the research done in the past, tons of it, nor the study by the gov. committee nor any reference to it's finding, i believe in the link above post, they the cia had 60 of those weapons available at that time, in umbrellas as well as canes, there also within somewhere, the info that the weapon had been used in europe to assassinate, a man, name gone sorry, i find his deliberate ommission and imo it is to be so apparent seeing it was his discovery all those years ago, therefore he certainly would have been more than aware of the findings released many years ago....to me this is like some who only produce the doc that agrees with their theory or finding, i was and am not impressed by such omission by dr.thompson....nor a guffaw attitude towards it..as it certainly was possible not, saying, halo !!!!!that it happened, but the gov proved for us, it was a possible through the use of a cia umbrella weapon system....thanks b

http://www.ratical.o...lle/JFK/TUM.txt The following article appeared in the June 1978 issue of "Gallery Magazine,"

and is reprinted here with permission of Mr. Sprague. The possibility that

a very rare and special secret weapon system, developed by the CIA at Fort

Detrick, Maryland, was used to immobilize JFK, and thus ensure the success

of "the turkey shoot" carried out in Dealey Plaza is explored in great

detail below.

Consider also that until the day of the JFK assassination in 1963,

there was *no place* that *anybody* outside of the very small CIA

and Special Forces group (perhaps as many as twenty people) could

get access to that flechette-launching weapon system or anything

like it.

To arrive at a solution to a murder as enigmatic and convoluted as that of

JFK, we must confront the existence of the netherworld of secret operations

carried out by covert agencies within our own government: "We have to

start thinking like the CIA, people. . . . Black is white, and white is

black." --ratitor

_____________________________________________________________________________

November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was slain, was bright

and sunny in Dallas. Why, then, was there a young man with an open

umbrella on Elm Street, less than 30 feet from the President's car

as it slowly passed by? Presented below is an answer to this

puzzle by a former consultant to the House Select Committee on

Assassinations.

THE UMBRELLA SYSTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION

by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler