Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Could someone please answer the questions I have posed for Robert Morrow? Oh, Robert, you are here. Why aren't you answering them?

Could someone post a picture of the stripes that were painted on the curb on the south side of Elm Street? They are 3 of them. Each approximately 7 feet long and separated by approximately 40 feet. Robert Groden says you can see them in the Zapruder Film. (Perhaps just before JFK's limo is about to cross behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.)

There was a very clear picture of them in a presentation by Brian Edwards at JFK Lancer 2011. I think the Dallas police have this picture of them.

I think the stripes were used as a marker for "kill zones" for the snipers (from the front) of JFK. They *may* have also been used as a marker for William Greer the driver to slow down (or possibly stop) so that JFK could be killed. It seems to me that the stripes were located directly across from the Stemmons Freeway sign and Dark Complected Man, who I absolutely believe was involved in the JFK assassination.

My current thinking is that key elements of the Secret Service were in on the JFK assassination along with Lyndon Johnson (and Allen Dulles, CIA folks).

These 3 stripes were painted along the side of the curb and also on top of the curb. They would have been extremely visible at the time. I was in Dealey Plaza a few weeks ago and some of the yellow paint of one of the 3 stripes is STILL on the curb. Beverly Oliver says that on 11/22/63 she stepped on fresh paint and still has the paint on her shoes to this day. Beverly Oliver told me she was age 17 at the time of the JFK assassination, which means she is age 65 currently in 2011.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all. None of what follows was written by me. It all came from Christopher Marlow, who appears to have noticed something that Jim D. seems to have missed.

228.

Christopher Marlow

San Diego, CA

November 22nd, 2011

6:08 pm

After watching this video, I looked up the interview of the "Umbrella Man" for the House Committee on Assassinations. It was very enlightening. The man's name was Louis Steven Witt, a former Dallas insurance salesman. He was questioned by counsel for the committee, Mr. Genzman....

Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots.

...

Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening?

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.

...

---> If you look at the Zapruder film, you will see that the car does not stop. But the Umbrella man and literally dozens of witnesses testified that the presidential limo came to a stop during the assassination.

The Zapruder film has been altered to conceal this and other facts. Any careful examination of the Z film will lead you to this conclusion.

Edited November 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Cliff Varnell]

Free Louis Witt!

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all.

[Richard Hocking]

Since the topic is "Tink's performance in the New York Times", and since it was Witt's testimony that persuaded Tink to take his position, it seems Witt's testimony is relevant in this thread.

Having said the above, I have a few questions/observations:

"Witt: Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots. "

Is there anyone in this forum that can fire a bolt action Mannlicher Carcano fast enough to make it sound like a "string of firecrackers" going off?

"Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes..."

The photographic record refutes Witt's testimony that the umbrella was blocking his view. Video and still photos show Witt in position, on the sidewalk, with the umbrella open above his head as the motorcade passes during the shooting sequence.

Witt is the only witness I know of to testify hearing "screeching of tires" as the Limo slowed/stopped. Could this detail have escaped hundreds of other witnesses in Dealey Plaza?

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

In other threads on this forum, I have seen references to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

Is that not applicable to this discussion?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

When Jim D. was citing things he said that made his whole testimony sound ambiguous and vague, there was nothing there

that confirmed he was actually present in Dealey Plaza at the time. THIS, however, is completely different, since he said:

MR. WITT: . . . The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just

about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires,

the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran up on the President's

car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where

I was seeing things.

Look at the delicious irony. Tink has insisted that Witt REALLY WAS THERE. Now we discover that Will reported THE CAR

STOP, SCREECHING OF TIRES, THE JAMMING ON OF BREAKS, MOTORCYCLE PATROLMAN THERE BESIDE ONE

OF THE CARS. ONE CAR RAN UP ON THE PRESIDENT'S CAR AND A MAN JUMPED OFF AND JUMPED ON THE BACK. . . .

He is describing Greer slamming on the breaks, the car being brought to an abrupt halt (which appears to be because of

the Cuban's signal with his fist), Officer James Chaney motoring forward, the Secret Service vehicle running right up to it

Clint Hill jumping off the Cadillac and getting on the back of the limo . . . WHAT ELSE COULD THIS BE? STUNNING.

Those who don't understand need to read "JFL: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?", "New Proof of JFK

Film Fakery", "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", "What happened on Elm Street: The Eyewitnesses

Speak", and others. Those who having not followed research on the limo stop may not have a clue. THIS IS FASCINATING!

What you are missing, Lee, is that rationality of belief requires responding to new evidence and new hypotheses. As long

as Witt's testimony was ambiguous and vague, there was no good reason to believe he was even there--much less that he

was the Umbrella Man! But this part of his testimony is detailed and specific--and fits what we reconstructed had happened!

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all.

Why was I expecting something like this to happen?

So was he there or wasn't he?

Is Tink Thompson right or a disinfo agent?

Is he undermining the JFK critical community or strengthening it?

Was Witt an innocent bystander or a spotter for the strike team? Was he firing darts at the limo or obscure protest?

Are you now looking forward to the rest of Thompson's interviews because he's now the best thing since man started slicing bread?

Give me strength. Have you always been fickle, Jim?

Edited November 27, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Daniel Meyer]

This Umbrella Man thing just became very interesting. Did you miss this part of his testimony, Jim D.? He may have been there, after all. None of what follows was written by me. It all came from Christopher Marlow, who appears to have noticed something that Jim D. seems to have missed.

228.

Christopher Marlow

San Diego, CA

November 22nd, 2011

6:08 pm

After watching this video, I looked up the interview of the "Umbrella Man" for the House Committee on Assassinations. It was very enlightening. The man's name was Louis Steven Witt, a former Dallas insurance salesman. He was questioned by counsel for the committee, Mr. Genzman....

Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots.

...

Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening?

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me, The next thing I saw after I saw the car coming down the street, down the hill to my left, the car was just about at a position like this [indicating] at this angle here. At this time there was the car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, [!!!] motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things.

...

---> If you look at the Zapruder film, you will see that the car does not stop. But the Umbrella man and literally dozens of witnesses testified that the presidential limo came to a stop during the assassination.

The Zapruder film has been altered to conceal this and other facts. Any careful examination of the Z film will lead you to this conclusion.

"He may have been there, after all". In any case, it sound like he was familiar with what Dealey Plaza witnesses were saying when not filtered by Belin, Specter, et al.

Please forgive my ignorance: Has any confirmed Dealey Plaza witness either recalled Witt being there or identified Witt as the man with the umbrella?

Did Witt talk about being in Dealey Plaza with friends or family or anyone else soon after the event?

Earlier forum discussion of Witt:

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870 Louis Steven Witt : Umbrella Man

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2725 Was it Louie Steven Witt after all?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Daniel Meyer

[Cliff Varnell]

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

The testimony of Rosemary Willis to the HSCA:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Witt was too concerned with the protest demonstration going on in his own head to instantly acquire a visual on JFK as soon as his umbrella was up.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the "conspicuous person" behind the concrete wall who "disappeared the next instant," less than a second after the throat shot.

[Cliff Varnell]

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

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers?

Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

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

Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett!

[Ian Kingsbury]

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

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers?

Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

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

Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett!

Could we start with Roger Craig please his story is so frustrating?.

[Richard Hocking]

What is compelling about Witt's testimony that would convince an objective person that he was the umbrella man in Dealey Plaza?

The testimony of Rosemary Willis to the HSCA:

Rosemary Willis...noticed two persons who looked "conspicuous." One was a man near

the curb holding an umbrella, who appeared to be more concerned with opening and closing

the umbrella than dropping to the ground like everyone else at the time of the shots. The

other was a person who was standing just behind the concrete wall down by the triple

underpass. That person appeared to "disappear the next instant."

Witt was too concerned with the protest demonstration going on in his own head to instantly acquire a visual on JFK as soon as his umbrella was up.

Personally, I'm far more interested in the "conspicuous person" behind the concrete wall who "disappeared the next instant," less than a second after the throat shot.

Agree that Rosemary Willis testimony supports Witt's testimony of fumbling with the umbrella... and yet, while they support each other's observation , the existing photographic record does not agree with that portion of their testimony.

If Witt's testimony is all true:

1. The extant Zapruder film, along with several other films and photos of the assassination have been doctored.

2. Hundreds of Dealey Plaza witnesses failed to mention the screeching of tires when the Limo driver jammed on the breaks.

3. There were numerous shots fired close enough together to sound like a string of firecrackers going off while the Limo was still to the left of TUM, in other words, before the head shot (which happened to his right).

[Guest Robert Morrow]

I was told by a JFK researcher that Louis Steven Witt was indeed the Umbrella Man and that he had told his story of being at Dealey Plaza to friends years before he testified at the HSCA.

I now think it is unlikely that he was part of the plotters and it was by chance he was located next to Dark Complected Man, who I strongly think was part of the field team for the JFK assassination.

And Louis Steven Witt sure did see JFK's limo slow down dramatically, didn't he? ... as per his HSCA testimony.

One more thing, I do think Witt was protesting JFK and holding up an umbrella to call JFK personally an appeaser; I do not think he was merely referencing his dad Joe Kennedy.

JFK was assassinated with words before he was killed with actual bullets. A good example of the elite of Dallas' attitude towards JFK (and CIA/military, JCS) are the words of Ted Dealey, the publisher of the Dallas Morning News.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/were-heading-into-nut-country-president-kennedy-said-this-to-an-aide-as-he-began-his-fatal-visit-to-texas-thirty-years-ago-here-peter-pringle-evokes-dallas-as-it-was-then-a-hostile-place-which-cared-very-little-for-the-dream-that-died-there-1505387.html

"These people thought Kennedy was doing the country a disservice by being too soft on Communism. 'We can annihilate Russia, and we should make that clear to the Soviet government,' the venerable owner of the Dallas Morning News, Ted Dealey, had told Kennedy at a dinner at the White House. What was needed, said Dealey, was 'a man on horseback to lead this nation, and many people in Texas and the South-West think that you are riding Caroline's tricycle'. Kennedy was not amused, but held his fire."

[Cliff Varnell]

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

So the CIA ran in a ringer to talk about limo stops and strings of shots like firecrackers?

Louis Witt -- yet another fine conspiracy witness whose reputation has been sacrificed to the blood lust of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community.

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

Louis Witt makes a good start. Next up, Glenn Bennett!

Could we start with Roger Craig please his story is so frustrating?.

Yes! Louis Witt will end up much further down on this list.

[Cliff Varnell]

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.

[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.

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-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol12/html/HSCA_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.

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."

Just not from an umbrella.

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

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/New_Scans/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.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Bernice Moore]

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. ''

Edited November 28, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Dean Hagerman]

Wait a second, so now Jim believes that Witt was TUM because he said he saw the limo stop?

And now Robert believes Witt was TUM because a single researcher told him that he was and that made Robert just change his mind?

Am I hallucinating? Or am I reading the last couple pages of this thread wrong?

I cant believe what im seeing, two researchers flip flopping like its nothing