Jump to content
The Education Forum

Louis Steven Witt : Umbrella Man


Recommended Posts

thank you Blair no offense meant none taken and heavens not all agree nor I amongst all , to each there own makes this all continue...forever ?? hopefully not..perhaps one day then we can all go home and get back to other pursuits and interests and sell all the books and retain back much more room within our abodes for ourselves...b..

JIM I FORGOT YOU ARE VERY WELCOME A FEW MORE WHATEVERS FOR YOUR FILE...B..

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

HI BRIAN....

BUT I DO WONDER IF THE UMBRELLA MAN AND DCM WERE SIGNALING FOR WHOMEVER WAS UP ON THE KNOLL OR WHEREVER TO FIRE...

quote]

Hi Bernice, havent been able to find Pauls article but will keep looking. sorry too, but I missed your post nr. 28 ;thanks for taking so much time for me.

But, I have to say that while I am convinced that the UM was signaling to someone, I just cant go for the Knoll shooter making the throat wound. Its just that it would have been very difficult to see the umbrella signal from the Knoll or the Freeway bridge, or from anywhere along a line running NW to SE behind the sign.

I believe that he was almost totally obscured by the Stemmons street sign and couldnt be seen from the Knoll vantage point.

I have used Don roberdeau`s map to illustrate the lines. For me, if the shooter was acting on a signal from the UM he would have to be between the two NW to SE red lines to see the signal and make the frontal shot throat wound.

(I choose Z 186 as the first possible moment for a shot which I believe occured around Z 194 )

The two people with 100% visibility of the UM signal were Greer and Kellermann, either of whom could then remotely activate a weapon concealed within the Presidents side door.

Edited by Brian O Connor
Link to post
Share on other sites
The two people with 100% visibility of the UM signal were Greer and Kellermann, either of whom could then remotely activate a weapon concealed within the Presidents side door.

Brian, good to see your still convinced in your theory, I can respect that. But can you answer something for me? Why didn't Mrs Kennedy or the Connolly's see the guns/blast coming from the interior of the doors? How could the assassins be sure they wouldn't?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The two people with 100% visibility of the UM signal were Greer and Kellermann, either of whom could then remotely activate a weapon concealed within the Presidents side door.

Brian, good to see your still convinced in your theory, I can respect that. But can you answer something for me? Why didn't Mrs Kennedy or the Connolly's see the guns/blast coming from the interior of the doors? How could the assassins be sure they wouldn't?

Hi Denis, sticking with it for the moment anyway. But, the weapon which I believe may have been used was one similar to that described by Douglas Bazata (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html) and which he maintained he had used in a failed attempt on Patton in December 45. He described it as being a spring loaded, compressed air contraption which could fire almost any shape of missile. He remembered that the best missile shape for accurate fire was a small cube, and the the weapon was good at about 7 yards. http://www.rense.com/general63/patton.htm

I don't believe that it would have made too much noise, and as I mentioned before, the contraption could have been set in a fixed position to fire a predetermined line of trajectory; all that would be required by the person operating it, would be to insure that the target was sitting in the line of trajectory using his mirror.

All the best

Brian

Edited by Brian O Connor
Link to post
Share on other sites
The two people with 100% visibility of the UM signal were Greer and Kellermann, either of whom could then remotely activate a weapon concealed within the Presidents side door.

Brian, good to see your still convinced in your theory, I can respect that. But can you answer something for me? Why didn't Mrs Kennedy or the Connolly's see the guns/blast coming from the interior of the doors? How could the assassins be sure they wouldn't?

Hi Denis, sticking with it for the moment anyway. But, the weapon which I believe may have been used was one similar to that described by Douglas Bazata (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/22/world/douglas-dewitt-bazata-artist-and-oss-officer-dies-at-88.html) and which he maintained he had used in a failed attempt on Patton in December 45. He described it as being a spring loaded, compressed air contraption which could fire almost any shape of missile. He remembered that the best missile shape for accurate fire was a small cube, and the the weapon was good at about 7 yards. http://www.rense.com/general63/patton.htm

I don't believe that it would have made too much noise, and as I mentioned before, the contraption could have been set in a fixed position to fire a predetermined line of trajectory; all that would be required by the person operating it, would be to insure that the target was sitting in the line of trajectory using his mirror.

All the best

Brian

I'm sorry. That is the most insane thing I have heard in awhile.

Again, it is extremely hard to believe that anyone in the position of setting this kind of thing up is going to use something as outrageous as a "gas powered cube firing" whatchamacallit..

IF and I say IF this contraption existed, why would anyone go to that much effort? It seems over the top to even speculate why, but please, don't bother to break this down any further .

It is also precluded by the very obvious fact that JFK died of acute lead poisoning from a rifle shot to the head.

"We have these here rifles in case the dart gag doesn't go well".

This whole idea is just useless. Using a mirror to target? This is all pretty elaborate..

Your suggestion is they set up hidden compartments, rigged the mirrors in the car..oh man.

If your "theory" is entertained in the slightest, Kennedy might as well have been driving through Dealey in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang....

Your entire premise is based on hearsay. "which he maintained he had used in a failed attempt on Patton"

Then you go so far as to offer this opinion "I don't believe that it would have made too much noise, and as I mentioned before, the contraption could have been set in a fixed position to fire a predetermined line of trajectory; all that would be required by the person operating it, would be to insure that the target was sitting in the line of trajectory using his mirror."

YAWN... Are you a cube firing dart gun expert? Are you a SS Limo driver?

Dart guns were developed and tested, but again, that's a long stretch. Too unreliable. Like most of your theory.

You come into a thread about the umbrella man, discount his ability to deliver a shot from his umbrella so you can prattle on about hidden dart guns in the car?Signaling the drivers?

Why? Why would these high tech super assassins planted in the car need a signal from the street? Assuming they were in on it they would of course know what was up..oh yeah.. that makes perfect sense...

I apologize for taking a harsh tone, but I find it counterproductive and intellectually immature to post these whackjob ideas here. In fact it's almost offensive to my intelligence to have to wade through garbage like this.

The President was killed by a bullet to the brain in Dallas.

This isn't Ian Fleming and Cubby Broccoli presents "0052 and a Half, Limo driving hit squad"

This kind of thing belongs in the David Icke forums.

There is not one speck of anything in your theory to make it possible, probable or otherwise.

So just stop wasting our time with it. If you continue, be assured I will tear it to shreds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blair

So just stop wasting our time with it. If you continue, be assured I will tear it to shreds.

YOU ARE A BULLY, AND I WILL PERSIST REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT OFFENDS YOUR "SUPERIOR" INTELLIGENCE

and no need to point out the cap lock to me either!

Edited by Brian O Connor
Link to post
Share on other sites
YOU ARE A BULLY, AND I WILL PERSIST REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT OFFENDS YOUR "SUPERIOR" INTELLIGENCE

and no need to point out the cap lock to me either!

Good for you Brian, I think you already realise from previous posts that I personally dont go along with your theory. But I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you presenting it. Brian, as long as its withing the forum rules, I would encourage you to post what you want, when you want. Denis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you already realise from previous posts that I personally dont go along with your theory. But I wouldn't dream of trying to stop you presenting it. Brian, as long as its withing the forum rules, I would encourage you to post what you want, when you want. Denis.

Thanks Denis, its reassuring to know that the spirit of Voltaire or Evelyn Beatrice Hall, is still alive + kicking "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not asking you to go that far all the same!

Thanks again

Brian

Link to post
Share on other sites
post-632-1255484576.jpg

There are a number of problems with this;

-this is a right handed, poly fiber, belt saddled, quick release holster.

-the gun and the holster in this picture did not exist in 1963.

While a loose fitting shoulder holster might sit like this, it could be a beer bottle, a rolled up magazine, a small flashlight.

I am sorry to say, but while these two are quite suspicious, the ideas of a dart/flechette firing umbrellas, multiple signalmen...none of it holds up.

It's like planning a surprise party:

The fewer that know the better...

One of the things I find surprising by contributors here is that in one thread, the suspension of disbelief used for one facet of this "investigation" and then ignored for another facet..

Lets ask a few questions:

You are part of a professional hit team with a highly visible target in a very visible place. You do NOT want to get caught, nor do you want anyone else tying you to the crime.

-Would you get and old guy to drop his hat as a signal?

-Would you get a guy to raise an umbrella?

-Would you get a Cuban looking fellow to stand in the street and wave?

-Would you put your other assets in a position where they could be photographed in a location you already know will be covered somewhat by people with cameras? A random variable like that? Then possibly detained/interrogated and the conspirators identified?

All one needs to do is look into how spotters and snipers work.

Two men. A shooter and a spotter. They know each other. They may not know any other teams. Probably better if they don't. Secure position with easy outs.

Low visibility. A disposable weapon. Job done, see ya later.

That is how that is done. Not "lets throw a party and invite 50 people to shoot the Prez!"

And as for drainpipes and a limo with hidden compartments, these are the results the overactive imaginations of some people who will invent a need where none is.

A professional hit team would be light and lean. In and out. Thanks goodbye.

If these UM/DCM theories were plausible, I would lean more towards the theory that this wasn't professional to the point of perfection but rather perpetrated by idiots of the highest caliber: stand in the road, invite 40 people to pull it off, leave questions everywhere that preclude the patsy....

the sheer stupidity of it is overwhelming...

(Sorry to ramble on here..)

I just think a large number of these theories are overdone. If you were going to steal a roast from your neighbors freezer, you wouldn't go to all this effort. You walk over, wait until the coast is clear , steal the roast and leave. Bad analogue I know, but when you change the conditions, the whole thing seems ludicrous. Roast Spotter man, Basting the roast man with baster, Babushka Roast Woman, Roast alteration evidence...

It's too complicated and contains far tooo many variables.

END RANT...

I know that sniping is currently done in the US military with a spotter and a shooter (at least that's what I see on the Military Channel), but the assassination of JFK in 1963 was not a military sniping.

There were other very successful snipings which took place in the civilian arena that lacked adherence to US military sniping protocals. Read "The Valachi Papers", for example.

And irrespective of the extent to which the method of the execution of the JFK assassination may have differed from the manner in which a US Army sniping team would handle the job, the JFK assassination was both successful and audacious.

I am agnostic about whether the man removing his hat is a signal, but I have no doubt that the UM and the DCM were casting a signal to commence sighting in the target and firing.

I don't find planting people to signal the arrival of the Presidential limo to be remotely complicated or fraught with variables.

To the contrary, I find it logical to have spotters at street level to signal the arrival of the target.

I also don't accept the notion that the raising or pumping of the umbrella on a sunny day by the UM and the raising of the DCM's hand, right before the bullets started flying, to be fortuitous.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...s-new-book.html

B.

SCROLL WAY WAY DOWN...

http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/history/

New Book Claims OSS Assassinated Patton

Conspiracy Theories, George Patton, History, Office of Strategic Services (OSS), WWII, William J. Donovan

line.

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites

TOP NINE INSANE WEAPONS OF WAR...

http://thecontaminated.com/top-nine-insane-weapons-of-war/

B..

3. Who, Me?:

A bad odor weapon to humiliate the enemy

Who Me? was a top secret sulfurous stench weapon developed by the American Office of Strategic Services during World War II to be used by the French Resistance against German officers. Who Me? smelled strongly of fecal matter, and was issued in pocket atomizers intended to be unobtrusively sprayed on a German officer, humiliating him and, by extension, demoralizing the occupying German forces.

Who Me

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to post
Share on other sites
post-632-1255484576.jpg

There are a number of problems with this;

-this is a right handed, poly fiber, belt saddled, quick release holster.

-the gun and the holster in this picture did not exist in 1963.

While a loose fitting shoulder holster might sit like this, it could be a beer bottle, a rolled up magazine, a small flashlight.

I am sorry to say, but while these two are quite suspicious, the ideas of a dart/flechette firing umbrellas, multiple signalmen...none of it holds up.

It's like planning a surprise party:

The fewer that know the better...

One of the things I find surprising by contributors here is that in one thread, the suspension of disbelief used for one facet of this "investigation" and then ignored for another facet..

Lets ask a few questions:

You are part of a professional hit team with a highly visible target in a very visible place. You do NOT want to get caught, nor do you want anyone else tying you to the crime.

-Would you get and old guy to drop his hat as a signal?

-Would you get a guy to raise an umbrella?

-Would you get a Cuban looking fellow to stand in the street and wave?

-Would you put your other assets in a position where they could be photographed in a location you already know will be covered somewhat by people with cameras? A random variable like that? Then possibly detained/interrogated and the conspirators identified?

All one needs to do is look into how spotters and snipers work.

Two men. A shooter and a spotter. They know each other. They may not know any other teams. Probably better if they don't. Secure position with easy outs.

Low visibility. A disposable weapon. Job done, see ya later.

That is how that is done. Not "lets throw a party and invite 50 people to shoot the Prez!"

And as for drainpipes and a limo with hidden compartments, these are the results the overactive imaginations of some people who will invent a need where none is.

A professional hit team would be light and lean. In and out. Thanks goodbye.

If these UM/DCM theories were plausible, I would lean more towards the theory that this wasn't professional to the point of perfection but rather perpetrated by idiots of the highest caliber: stand in the road, invite 40 people to pull it off, leave questions everywhere that preclude the patsy....

the sheer stupidity of it is overwhelming...

(Sorry to ramble on here..)

I just think a large number of these theories are overdone. If you were going to steal a roast from your neighbors freezer, you wouldn't go to all this effort. You walk over, wait until the coast is clear , steal the roast and leave. Bad analogue I know, but when you change the conditions, the whole thing seems ludicrous. Roast Spotter man, Basting the roast man with baster, Babushka Roast Woman, Roast alteration evidence...

It's too complicated and contains far tooo many variables.

END RANT...

I know that sniping is currently done in the US military with a spotter and a shooter (at least that's what I see on the Military Channel), but the assassination of JFK in 1963 was not a military sniping.

There were other very successful snipings which took place in the civilian arena that lacked adherence to US military sniping protocals. Read "The Valachi Papers", for example.

And irrespective of the extent to which the method of the execution of the JFK assassination may have differed from the manner in which a US Army sniping team would handle the job, the JFK assassination was both successful and audacious.

I am agnostic about whether the man removing his hat is a signal, but I have no doubt that the UM and the DCM were casting a signal to commence sighting in the target and firing.

I don't find planting people to signal the arrival of the Presidential limo to be remotely complicated or fraught with variables.

To the contrary, I find it logical to have spotters at street level to signal the arrival of the target.

I also don't accept the notion that the raising or pumping of the umbrella on a sunny day by the UM and the raising of the DCM's hand, right before the bullets started flying, to be fortuitous.

Dobson missed the point of my graphic entirely. It was meant ONLY to show the similarity

of shapes...NOT proposing an actual holster or pistol.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also don't accept the notion that the raising or pumping of the umbrella on a sunny day by the UM and the raising of the DCM's hand, right before the bullets started flying, to be fortuitous...

I THINK YOU MADE A POINT..AS IT CERTAINLY WOULD BE TO ANY WATCHING AND AWAITING A SIGNAL...B..

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
×
×
  • Create New...