Jump to content

Umbrella Man


Robin Unger
 Share

Recommended Posts

This photo has been tampered with in my opinion. See the solid shadows of the Stemmon's Sign and Umbrella Man. Note the Dark Complected Man casts no shadow. Also note, it looks like he has no feet! The shadows are solid, but the Umbrella, which is a solid object, is scarcely there.

Kathy,

it's the blurred Bronson photo, seen on the back cover of POTP.

The descrepances you see are all consistant with movement of the camera as the shutter was depressed.

But please don't take my word for it, I'm just giving you my opinion that it's not a great photo to begin with(at least not good enough to see the details we are asking from it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

This photo has been tampered with in my opinion. See the solid shadows of the Stemmon's Sign and Umbrella Man. Note the Dark Complected Man casts no shadow. Also note, it looks like he has no feet! The shadows are solid, but the Umbrella, which is a solid object, is scarcely there.

Kathy,

it's the blurred Bronson photo, seen on the back cover of POTP.

The descrepances you see are all consistant with movement of the camera as the shutter was depressed.

But please don't take my word for it, I'm just giving you my opinion that it's not a great photo to begin with(at least not good enough to see the details we are asking from it).

Even though it is blurred, we can still see the sign and its shadow. How can the sign really be there when TGZFH says the sign was inserted later and proved this by the sign in the film showing a different "pin cushion" effect than the rest of the film? Maybe the sign was there and the "authorities" only removed it because it had taken a bullet?

Which version is correct?

Kathy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo has been tampered with in my opinion. See the solid shadows of the Stemmon's Sign and Umbrella Man. Note the Dark Complected Man casts no shadow. Also note, it looks like he has no feet! The shadows are solid, but the Umbrella, which is a solid object, is scarcely there.

Kathy,

it's the blurred Bronson photo, seen on the back cover of POTP.

The descrepances you see are all consistant with movement of the camera as the shutter was depressed.

But please don't take my word for it, I'm just giving you my opinion that it's not a great photo to begin with(at least not good enough to see the details we are asking from it).

Thanks for the comments.

Edited by Robin Unger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This photo has been tampered with in my opinion. See the solid shadows of the Stemmon's Sign and Umbrella Man. Note the Dark Complected Man casts no shadow. Also note, it looks like he has no feet! The shadows are solid, but the Umbrella, which is a solid object, is scarcely there.

Kathy,

it's the blurred Bronson photo, seen on the back cover of POTP.

The descrepances you see are all consistant with movement of the camera as the shutter was depressed.

But please don't take my word for it, I'm just giving you my opinion that it's not a great photo to begin with(at least not good enough to see the details we are asking from it).

Even though it is blurred, we can still see the sign and its shadow. How can the sign really be there when TGZFH says the sign was inserted later and proved this by the sign in the film showing a different "pin cushion" effect than the rest of the film? Maybe the sign was there and the "authorities" only removed it because it had taken a bullet?

Which version is correct?

Kathy

Sorry Kathy,

I just have to make this clear.

I wasn't saying that what is seen on the back of "POTP" is the source of the crop of Bronson that Ron posted. I was just identifying the photo, not the source of that very good crop.

That came from a Bronson photo Jack had, I believe.

I can't comment on the sign issue though, I'm not informed enough.

I've read the book however & I know exactly what your referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles wrote:

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

One can subnit just about anything, I suppose, so long as there is no requirement that there be a factual basis for onr's submission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles wrote:

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

One can subnit just about anything, I suppose, so long as there is no requirement that there be a factual basis for onr's submission.

Investigations such as that being conducted into the conspiratorial murder of JFK depend for ultimate success upon, among other components, the development of testable hypotheses.

Absent the application of the creative process, or "deductive reasoning" in matters such as these, investigators have zero chance of solving "mysteries" (see below).

Given the previously stated, reasonable proposition of the conspirators' "kill at all costs" approach, it is reasonable to suggest that redundant communications systems at the ambush site and a Parkland coup d'grace were essential components of the plot

(And for the record: There is no mystery whatsoever regarding "how" JFK was killed. Our focus rightly should be on the "who" and "why" questions.)

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles it is no wonder you can label all those who disagree with your POV on the assassination "cognitively impaired". It is clear you have little if any conception of logical reasoning.

You wrote:

Investigations such as that being conducted into the conspiratorial murder of JFK depend for ultimate success upon, among other components, the development of testable hypotheses.

Absent the application of the creative process, or "deductive reasoning" in matters such as these, investigators have zero chance of solving "mysteries" (see below).

From Wikipedia:

In deductive reasoning, the evidence provided must be a set about which everything is known before the conclusion can be drawn. Since it is difficult to know everything before drawing a conclusion, deductive reasoning has little use in the real world.

Deductive reasoning is not even close to the "creative process". Moreover, there is no way to test your "hypothesis". It is not "pure speculation"; it is "rank speculation". And it gets us no place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles:

I agree... scientific theories can be postulated as either deductive (from a series of facts) or inductive. In the latter, you submit the theory and then go gather the facts to support. An excellent example is Einstein's general relativity theory wherein he made the bold claim (in part) that light would bend near massive objects. It took Sir Arthur Eddington to demonstrate by experiment during an eclipse that this prediction was accurate. Physicists have been challenging that theory for almost 100 years now, and it still stands tall. My point being, general relativity is an audacious (and counter-intuitive) concept - almost incomprehensible - but it's nonetheless valid.

So goes our assassination quest... and I think your theory is plausible. Just like other posts have stated the presence of backup plans, alternate kill sites and contingencies. Thorough planning for such an act would demand no less. I've read in more than one source that Colonel "Bishop" was at Parkland, along with our old friend Jack Ruby. And didn't someone offer a picture of an individual resembling the sinister Colonel Boris Pash? Scientific theory (including quantum mechanics) would not support these occurrences as random or coincidental... their presence at Parkland is not a coincidence.

Gene

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles:

I agree... scientific theories can be postulated as either deductive (from a series of facts) or inductive. In the latter, you submit the theory and then go gather the facts to support. An excellent example is Einstein's general relativity theory wherein he made the bold claim (in part) that light would bend near massive objects. It took Sir Arthur Eddington to demonstrate by experiment during an eclipse that this prediction was accurate. Physicists have been challenging that theory for almost 100 years now, and it still stands tall. My point being, general relativity is an audacious (and counter-intuitive) concept - almost incomprehensible - but it's nonetheless valid.

So goes our assassination quest... and I think your theory is plausible. Just like other posts have stated the presence of backup plans, alternate kill sites and contingencies. Thorough planning for such an act would demand no less. I've read in more than one source that Colonel "Bishop" was at Parkland, along with our old friend Jack Ruby. And didn't someone offer a picture of an individual resembling the sinister Colonel Boris Pash? Scientific theory (including quantum mechanics) would not support these occurrences as random or coincidental... their presence at Parkland is not a coincidence.

Gene

Gene,

It was I who offered the possibility that Pash was at Parkland. E. Howard Hunt was the one who offered up Pash as allegedly being behind an assassination unit.

James

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles wrote:

I submit that at least one comrade in arms likely was stationed at Parkland Hospital and charged with a mission directly related to "kill at all costs."

The coup d'grace.

One can subnit just about anything, I suppose, so long as there is no requirement that there be a factual basis for onr's submission.

(And for the record: There is no mystery whatsoever regarding "how" JFK was killed. Our focus rightly should be on the "who" and "why" questions.)

Charles

Exactly Charles. Let's move on to the who and why already. I think we have been patient enough with the cognitively impaired.

I just have one word for you folks: Photobucket

Plus a question; anyone seen this document?

OSWALD_CIA.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter,

I first saw the document when it was posted on the Jeff Rense website -- if memory serves, at least two years ago.

While I haven't found any in-depth analyses of its content and style, my considered opinion is that it is bogus.

The game, as always, is afoot.

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles:

My point being, general relativity is an audacious (and counter-intuitive) concept - almost incomprehensible - but it's nonetheless valid.

So goes our assassination quest... and I think your theory is plausible. Just like other posts have stated the presence of backup plans, alternate kill sites and contingencies. Thorough planning for such an act would demand no less. I've read in more than one source that Colonel "Bishop" was at Parkland, along with our old friend Jack Ruby. And didn't someone offer a picture of an individual resembling the sinister Colonel Boris Pash? Scientific theory (including quantum mechanics) would not support these occurrences as random or coincidental... their presence at Parkland is not a coincidence.

Gene

Gene,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

A "counter-intuitive" concept is, by definition, a product of the creative process.

Given the "kill at all costs" proposition as I have stated it previously, it is logical to reason that the conspirators had no choice but to cover their bet at Parkland.

A reasonable test of this hypothesis: Were individuals circumstantially (or otherwise) linked to the conspiracy present at Parkland between the time of JFK's arrival and the technical pronouncement of his death?

Another: Does evidence exist to suggest that a coup d'grace was administered to JFK actively (via injection of a poisonous substance, for instance) and/or passively (the denial of critical, life-saving procedures)?

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another: Does evidence exist to suggest that a coup d'grace was administered to JFK actively (via injection of a poisonous substance, for instance)...?

Charles

Yes!

The shallow back back wound and the absence of a bullet in the back.

There is the testimony of Senseney and Colby before the Church Committee

to blood soluble rounds, as well as CIA experimentation with shellfish toxins.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/r..._6_Senseney.pdf

Senseney testified that they used a round the size of a .22 on a dog, and that

larger targets required larger rounds.

Colby admitted they experimented on humans.

None of that "poison dart" nonsense -- these were rounds JFK was struck with,

both in the throat and the back.

The autopsists shared a general sense that JFK was hit with blood soluble rounds,

at least before the introduction of the Magic Bullet fouled their diagnoses.

The Zap shows JFK reacting as if he was coughing up a bullet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3uH7FHjCeQ

The coup de grace was administered in Dealey Plaza.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...