Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tink's performance in The New York Times


Guest James H. Fetzer
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 526
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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. 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-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 by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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) </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 by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specificity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. They had an agenda. And they achieved it.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

2uqtv.jpg

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

al3dyw.jpg

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why.

First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime.

But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy.

What does it mean, though? Lets see:

If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that:

(1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped.

(2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything)

Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this?

So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder?

Edited by Glenn Viklund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, I'm only beginning to sort this out, but his description of what happened is very close to what happened as

we have reconstructed it. The limo stop, of course, is at the heart of the matter. It was such a blatant example

of Secret Service complicity that it had to be taken out. When you study Clint Hill's report of the sequence of acts

he took--running forward, boarding the vehicle, pushing Jackie down, lying over their bodies and peering into a

fist-sized hole in the back of JFK's head while giving a "thumbs down" BEFORE THE LIMO REACHED the TUP

--which he has been saying and reporting consistently for (then) 47 years--this is hardly the first time we've had

a witness who supported the limo stop. I have given several references to studies that document their reports.

The point is that THIS DESCRIPTION, which was NOT in DiEugenio's summary, POWERFULLY SUGGESTS HE

ACTUALLY WAS THERE. Some of it is rather fascinating, including about the breaks and all that, because it has

not come up before. But when you have a motorcade that is proceeding quite uneventually AND THE LEAD CAR

SLAMS ON ITS BREAKS, it would not be surprising if the car following should run up against it or if other drivers

had to react by slamming on their breaks. So you are making too quick an inferences from the sound of breaks

to assuming the sound came from the limo! What he is saying needs to be sorted out but, given this stunning

and dramatic report (which he cannot have acquired from viewing the Zapruder film), he probably WAS there.

It's like finding a fingerprint or the DNA of someone who was not previously a suspect at a crime scene. This

guy could not possibly have known some of what he is reporting UNLESS HE HAD BEEN THERE. Even the limo

stop is not widely known, even though there are dozens and dozens of witnesses who reported it. Too many

play on the "slowed dramatically" versus "came to a halt" difference, which is splitting hairs, since (1) it had to

slow dramatically to come to a halt and (2) the Zapruder film shows NEITHER dramatic slowing NOR coming to

a halt. So this is really quite remarkable, because, as in the case of Gary Aguilar's chapter in MURDER, Tink has

endorsed Witt, but he turns out to have witnessed the limo stop, which is further proof that the film is a fake.

We already know the Zapruder film and others have been revised. If you don't know that, I have no idea where

you have been for the last dozen years. This has been a central bone of contention between Tink and me, for

example, through dozens and dozens of exchanges over the years. I have published a book about it and had

the Duluth Zapruder Film Symposium put on YouTube. And we know that high-velocity rounds make the sound

of a firecracker when the pass through the windshield of cars. If he doesn't have everything right, that does not

mean he has everything wrong! What he says about the limo stop is remarkable--and he may even be right on

the sound of screeching breaks through the motorcade. That would not be surprising under the circumstances.

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).

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Well, it may mean that Robert Morrow was closer to the truth than I was in relation to the Umbrella Man. This

is a new development, Glenn, and if my earlier take was wrong, so be it! A fundamental principle of scientific

reasoning is that the search for truth must be based upon all the available relevant evidence. This new stuff

is STUNNING and includes a man running forward (Clint Hill), motorcycle patrolman (James Chaney), abrupt

stop (which could entail all the other effects of breaking in the motorcade), and remarks about the shots and

their sound. We know many said that the first shot (or "the first shots") sounded like firecrackers. Jim Lewis

has found what may explain that sound. But the fact is we have new evidence to consider in assessing this.

When his testimony was vague and ambiguous, my other arguments carried greater weight. At the very least,

we have found a remarkable additional witness to the limo stop from an expected source--and thanks to Tink!

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specificity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. They had an agenda. And they achieved it.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

2uqtv.jpg

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

al3dyw.jpg

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why.

First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime.

But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy.

What does it mean, though? Lets see:

If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that:

(1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped.

(2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything)

Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this?

So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder?

Edited by James H. Fetzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specificity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. They had an agenda. And they achieved it.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

2uqtv.jpg

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

al3dyw.jpg

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why.

First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime.

But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy.

What does it mean, though? Lets see:

If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that:

(1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped.

(2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything)

Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this?

So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder?

Abracadabra is the magic word. I had a long time, experienced, capable JFK researcher contact me and told me in no uncertain terms that Louis Steven Witt was indeed Umbrella Man and very unlikely to have been in any plot. This JFK researcher believes the JFK assass. was a coup d'etat; he is far from a lone nutter. He said he knew folks who knew Witt and Witt had talked about his Dealey Plaza experiences long before the HSCA.

I will change what I think in a heartbeat if the weight of the evidence tells me to. I do it all the time on the "minor issues" but not on the larger theory of a Lyndon Johnson/CIA coup d'etat. Recently, I changed my mind on the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint. I used to think it was a match; now I do not based on a conversation with a credible, experienced fingerprint examiner.

Many JFK researchers (many people in general) are too dogmatic. They stick with a theory or a believe in a set of facts - the truth be damned, no matter what the evidence is. When the weight of the evidence tilts one way, you should follow it. Sometimes the weight of the evidence flips back to the original spot ... follow that, too.

Also, those 3 yellow stripes on Elm Street are pretty much directly across from where Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man are sitting.

Edited by Robert Morrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I could just as well direct this at Glenn Viklund, but he, in my opinion, is a "lost cause". In any case, there

are excellent reasons to deny Witt was the Umbrella man even if we assume the umbrellas match. And if it

turns out that I am right--that one of them has 10 spokes, while the other has 12--would you admit defeat?

As Jim DiEugenio outlined in Post #80, nothing in his HSCA testimony actually shows he was there:

Posted 25 November 2011 - 07:36 PM

Has anyone read Witt's testimony of late?

I don't think so.

These are some of the things he said.

1.) He never planned on doing what he did until that morning.

2.) He did not know the exact parade route.

3.) He just happened to wander around for a walk and guessed where it would be.

4.) Contrary to what Cliff says, he did what he did with no relation to JFK's policies, only Joe Sr.

5.) What did the Cuban looking guy say? Words to the effect, They shot those people. (Oh really Louie?)

6.) Admits he sat there for up to three minutes and that he never even looked behind him at the picket fence! (Truly surprising.)

7.) He never did anything like this before or since, and he was not a member of any conservative group or organization.

8.) He placed the umbrella on the sidewalk and then picked it up. He wavers on whether this is definitely the umbrella he had that day.

9.) He often uses the conditional, like I think that is me, or that may be the guy I sat next to.

Now, if there is any doubt he was there to be used as a club against the critics, Stokes asked him specifically if his umbrella could fire a dart. When it was unfolded, he then joked about people getting out of the way. Stokes then concluded that this rumor bandied about by the critics could now be dispelled. And then Blakey specifically named Sylvia Meagher and got on to another rumor bandied about by the critics, namely all these suspicious deaths.

There is a surprising lack of specificity in the questions. Only Fauntroy even began to ask any searching queries. And clearly the HSCA was not going to compare the two umbrellas.

But that is not what they wanted to do. They had an agenda. And they achieved it.

A second is that your position is incoherent. You insist that the Cuban was complicit, but

you still deny that Witt was involved. Yet they were obviously there together. So you

have to explain how, given these two guys were together, one was innocent and one not:

2uqtv.jpg

They BOTH "sit down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing", do they not?

Third, has it escaped your attention that, in some of the photos, their images have been altered?

If these guys were innocent, then why has someone gone to the trouble to distort their appearance?

al3dyw.jpg

Glenn Viklund hasn't a clue and I couldn't convince him of anything. But I tend to think that you are

actually amenable to reason on at least some occasions. Do you see why you appear to be wrong?

And with the limo out front, the bouquet of red roses and the stripes, why would they need a spotter?

Jim

I would like to go on the record to say:

1) I now do NOT believe that Umbrella Man was involved in any, way, shape or form with the JFK assassination. I believe he was Louis Steven Witt and I believe the testimony that he gave to the HSCA. I had a JFK researcher contact me who knows folks who knew Louis Steven Witt and heard his Umbrella Man story long before he told it to the HSCA. Apparently, Witt was an innocent guy at the wrong place at the wrong time, while doing something suspicious. So I have changed my mind from my previous views in this thread.

2) I do think that Dark Complected Man was a spotter for the snipers of the JFK assassination. DCM is the one with the walkie talkie, hand signals and who sits down cool as a cucumber post assassination while chaos is ensuing. He looks like a CIA connected anti-Castro Cuban to me.

By the way, folks, we forgot to mention and point out the freshed painted 7 foot long stripes on the South Curb of Elm Street that were there on 11/22/63. Beverly Oliver says that the paint of those stripes was so fresh that she has it still on her shoes.

Yes, it did actually become interesting. But not because of the reasons you've outlined, but because this demonstrates very clearly why anything you say should be taken with a huge grain of salt. That's why.

First, you declare that Witt is a xxxx and involved in the assassination. And that the Cuban looking guy and Witt knows each other and thus he is also accused of complicity in this crime.

But just like that, ABRAKADABRA - you change your mind about Witt. When you discover (after taking part of his testimony for the first time?) that he was actually saying something that apparently fits with another of your claims, then we are told that now, Witt is indeed a believable guy.

What does it mean, though? Lets see:

If Witt is telling us the truth about how he understood the situation it means that:

(1) He couldn't possibly be part of any conspiracy, since he actually claims something that according to you, was one of the ideas behind the alleged Z film-alteration; namely to hide that the limo ever stopped.

(2) It means that the cuban looking guy for all we know is just as innocent a bystander as Witt, despite these men being close to each other during the assassination. (One can assume that Fetzer doesn't often visit crowded events similar to a presidential motorcade - it's not uncommon that perfect strangers actually do talk to each other, or even sit down for a moment together, in all certainty it proves no one guilty of anything)

Have you decided yet just how you're gone cherry pick your way out of this?

So, who is it that doesn't have a clue here, I wonder?

Abracadabra is the magic word. I had a long time, experienced, capable JFK researcher contact me and told me in no uncertain terms that Louis Steven Witt was indeed Umbrella Man and very unlikely to have been in any plot. This JFK researcher believes the JFK assass. was a coup d'etat; he is far from a lone nutter. He said he knew folks who knew Witt and Witt had talked about his Dealey Plaza experiences long before the HSCA.

I will change what I think in a heartbeat if the weight of the evidence tells me to. I do it all the time on the "minor issues" but not on the larger theory of a Lyndon Johnson/CIA coup d'etat. Recently, I changed my mind on the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint. I used to think it was a match; now I do not based on a conversation with a credible, experienced fingerprint examiner.

Many JFK researchers (many people in general) are too dogmatic. They stick with a theory or a believe in a set of facts - the truth be damned, no matter what the evidence is. When the weight of the evidence tilts one way, you should follow it. Sometimes the weight of the evidence flips back to the original spot ... follow that, too.

Also, those 3 yellow stripes on Elm Street are pretty much directly across from where Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man are sitting.

Of course dogmatism can be a huge obstacle. But jumping to conclusions is certainly no less serious. If anyone accuse others of being part in the crime of the century - you would expect them to have done their home work properly.

Not having read such witnesses' statements is inexcusable in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has taken an unfortunate turn, but not a surprising one. If we can get back to Thompson's interview with the New York Times....

What is significant here is that this interview will leave impressionable readers (and viewers) with the notion that a suspicious character they may or may not have heard of-TUM-was in fact just an innocent bystander. Conclusion on the part of those unfamiliar with the data- those dastardly "conspiracy theorists" are wrong again! That's the only important point here; public perception is everything, and each time public voices like Gary Mack or Josiah Thompson laugh off something CTers have long suspected, then a few more sheeple become convinced that Oswald did it.

While CTers continue to quibble over minutae that few if any Americans can hope to understand, television shows and interviews in large newspapers like this relentlessly push the lone nutter conclusion. We argue, call each other names, and become hopelessly fragmented into warring factions. Meanwhile, the establishment is laughing at us. All lone nutters are laughing at us. We just can't set aside our egos long enough to realize how imporant a large coalition can be.

If Josiah Thompson still believes there was a conspiracy, I'd request that next time he tell the Times, or any other msm organ that wants to interview him, that this is his belief. After trashing TUM or some other aspect of the case that most CTers find relevant and suspect, maybe he could just close with, "But this doesn't change the simple reality that there WAS a conspiracy."

Edited by Don Jeffries
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Josiah Thompson still believes there was a conspiracy, I'd request that next time he tell the Times, or any other msm organ that wants to interview him, that this is his belief. After trashing TUM or some other aspect of the case that most CTers find relevant and suspect, maybe he could just close with, "But this doesn't change the simple reality that there WAS a conspiracy."

Well said, Don.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find aspects of this thread both astounding and embarrassing. First of all, as a rule of thumb, it's a good Idea not to judge the credibility of a witness without ever reading the testimony of that witness. Geez, maybe he said something that'll make you believe him! Second of all, as a rule of them, it's a good idea to read witness testimony with an open mind. Anyone claiming, as a certainty, that NO ONE would hold up an umbrella as a form of silent protest is blowing smoke. I know someone would, because it's the kind of thing I would do, and have done. I even had my picture taken by dozens of photographers while doing so, and was told by one I'd have made the front page except for one thing...Ronald Reagan had just died.

My third observation goes out to those attacking Tink for giving an interview to the Ny Times. First of all, the interview wasn't with the Times, it was with Errol Morris. Errol Morris is not only is an Academy Award-winning director, he publicly disgraced the City of Dallas by demonstrating how a number of city officials, including Detective Gus Rose and DA Henry Wade, conspired to frame an innocent man. As a result, he has probably done more to suggest Oswald was framed than anyone here. That no one else has mentioned this is astounding, IMO. As the interview with Tink stretched for hours and hours, moreover, it certainly seems likely that Tink DID discuss evidence pointing to a conspiracy and that Morris will use that footage in his upcoming film or series on the assassination. We'll see.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread has taken an unfortunate turn, but not a surprising one. If we can get back to Thompson's interview with the New York Times....

What is significant here is that this interview will leave impressionable readers (and viewers) with the notion that a suspicious character they may or may not have heard of-TUM-was in fact just an innocent bystander. Conclusion on the part of those unfamiliar with the data- those dastardly "conspiracy theorists" are wrong again! That's the only important point here; public perception is everything, and each time public voices like Gary Mack or Josiah Thompson laugh off something CTers have long suspected, then a few more sheeple become convinced that Oswald did it.

While CTers continue to quibble over minutae that few if any Americans can hope to understand, television shows and interviews in large newspapers like this relentlessly push the lone nutter conclusion. We argue, call each other names, and become hopelessly fragmented into warring factions. Meanwhile, the establishment is laughing at us. All lone nutters are laughing at us. We just can't set aside our egos long enough to realize how imporant a large coalition can be.

If Josiah Thompson still believes there was a conspiracy, I'd request that next time he tell the Times, or any other msm organ that wants to interview him, that this is his belief. After trashing TUM or some other aspect of the case that most CTers find relevant and suspect, maybe he could just close with, "But this doesn't change the simple reality that there WAS a conspiracy."

Excellent point, Don.

Someone posted that the actual interview lasted several hours. In an age of sound bytes, video snippets, cut and paste journalism, ect., the MSM has the ability to pick through and choose whatever tidbit suits their taste and frame it for their own purposes. That may very well be what happened here. If that is the case, a statement of clarification from Josiah Thompson would be refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Richard, I respectfully disagree. Since Witt was so pre-occupied with his umbrella why would it be surprising that he didn't instantly attain visual on JFK as soon as the umbrella was up?

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).

1. Ah, Zap Alt. A subject I generally stay away from since I don't have the technical training and skill to verify these claims one way or another.

I have asked my friends in the Zap Alt camp, with whom I generally agree on the important points of the case, if they could identify any alteration in the crucial Z frames 186 thru 255. Burnham/Fetzer/Costella/White/Rigby could not identify any alteration in those frames.

Z186-255. There are three crucial photographs taken in that sequence -- Betzner3 (186), Willis5 (Z202), Altgens6 (255). Along with the testimonies of the witnesses closet to JFK,

I feel these photo images form...drumroll...this one's for you, Tink!...

Bedrock Evidence

After 255 I have no idea. I don't think there were frames removed to conceal a limo stop, I think it's possible there were frames removed to conceal the back shot. In fact, the limo stop (a subject upon which I am agnostic) and the back shot may possibly have coincided.

2. Memory is a tricky thing, and I wouldn't find it unusual if Witt's memory filled in that bit about the screeching tires. Anyone's recollection of anything could be picked apart like this.

3. He heard a lot of shots in a short period of time. So? Pretty good conspiracy witness -- let's hang him! :(

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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...