Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Glenn Viklund]

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:

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?

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 November 28, 2011 by Glenn Viklund

[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 November 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[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:

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?

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 November 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[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:

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?

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 November 28, 2011 by Robert Morrow

[Glenn Viklund]

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:

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?

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.

[Don Jeffries]

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 November 28, 2011 by Don Jeffries

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Pat Speer]

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 November 28, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Richard Hocking]

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.

[Cliff Varnell]

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 November 28, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

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?

[Bernice Moore]

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

Fourth Decade comment on Umbrella Man

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

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

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

Edited November 28, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

http://www.businessinsider.com/ny-times-umbrella-man-exposed-2011-11

NY Times’ Umbrella Man Exposed

Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy | Nov. 28, 2011, 8:00 AM | 78 |

Russ Baker

“Umbrella Man” Does His Thing at JFK Assassination Scene

More and more, one is struck by the extent to which the New York Times is disassociated from reality. One might judge the paper’s publishing of official falsehoods as the occasional and accidental byproduct of the pressure to produce so many articles, were it not for the consistency and rigidly sclerotic way it loyally foists patently untrue material upon the public.

I say this as someone who still reads the Times, still has friends working there, and still retains some isolated pockets of fondness for it.

But it is hard to overlook these constant transgressions. As we note here at WhoWhatWhy, these range from ignoring the real reasons for the invasion of Libya to apologizing for fraud perpetrated by its favorite Afghanistan propagandist (and the author of Three Cups of Tea). It surely includes the paper’s failure to share with its readers overwhelming and constantly refreshed documentation of an organized coup that resulted in the death of President John F. Kennedy and the end of meaningful reform in America. I addressed that latter issue in the article, “NY Times’ Ostrich Act on JFK Assassination Getting Old.”

Far from proper journalistic curiosity, the paper sees its job as enforcing orthodoxy, and shutting down consideration of anything untoward. According to the New York Times’s peculiar brand of journalism, coups and plots happen with regularity abroad, but never, never, in the United States.

It is important to include the pejorative phrase “conspiracy theorist” in every article, even acknowledging concern about the health of democracy in America. It is important to have a good laugh at the expense of those poor souls who trouble themselves inquiring into the darker precincts of this country’s history.

So it is with the 48th anniversary of Kennedy’s death. Instead of assigning a single reporter to scrutinize the hundreds or thousands of meaningful, documented facts that do suggest more than “the lone nut did it,” the Times gets busy with the disinformation business.

Here are two Times “contributions” on this occasion:

UMBRELLA MAN

On the 48th anniversary of Kennedy’s murder, the Times ran an op-ed piece and short film by documentary maker Errol Morris about another man’s research into “umbrella man.” Umbrella Man is the nickname for a fellow who famously brought an umbrella on a sunny day for the president’s visit to Dallas November 22, 1963, stood on the “grassy knoll,” and, just as the president’s car passed, he opened the umbrella and pumped it in the air. Many have speculated as to the significance, or lack of significance, of this strange behavior. Some wonder if Umbrella Man was part of the assassination scenario, perhaps signaling to shooters. There was even the September 1975 Senate intelligence committee testimony by Charles Senseney, a contract weapons designer for the CIA, that the agency had perfected an umbrella that shoots undetectable poison darts that can immobilize and kill, raising questions about whether this was in play that day. (See P. 168 in the Senate committee testimony, where Senseney explains specifically about the agency’s use of a toxin and the ability to fire it from a modified umbrella.)

The self-described Umbrella Man, Louie Steven Witt, came forward to offer his testimony in 1978, or three years after the CIA expert provided this now forgotten testimony on umbrellas as weapon. Umbrella Man came forward just as a special House Select Committee on Assassinations was focusing on the possibility of a conspiracy (which, it concluded in its final report…was likely.) (You can order a video of a report on Witt’s testimony, by then ABC News reporter Brit Hume, here)

The counsel for the Assassinations Committee, remarkably, does not mention the prior Senate testimony by the CIA weapons expert that such an umbrella device did exist, and instead quotes a more shaky claim by an “assassinations critic” regarding such a device.

Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Witt, exhibit 406 is a copyrighted diagram

drawn by assassinations critic Robert B. Cutler which shows two

umbrellas with rocket and flechette attachments. Mr. Witt, do you

know what a flechette is?

Mr. WITT. I do now. I did not prior to our interview yesterday

evening.

Mr. GENZMAN. Did the umbrella in your possession on November

22, 1963, contain a flechette, or a rocket or a dart?

Mr. WITT, No, It did not.

Mr. GENZMAN. Has exhibit 405, the umbrella, ever contained -a

flechette, rocket. or dart?

Mr. WITT. No. Not since it’s been in my possession.

Mr. GENZMAN. Did the umbrella in your possession on November

1963; contain a gun or weapon of any sort?

438

Mr. WITT. No.

Mr. GENZMAN. Has exhibit 405 ever contained a gun or weapon

of any sort?

Mr. WITT. This umbrella?

Mr. GENZMAN. Yes.

Mr. WITT. No.

Mr. GENZMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Witt.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.

Is the Times at all interested in the credibility of this purported umbrella-bearer? Absolutely not.

Instead, the Morris video presents the idea that sometimes, the most ridiculous scenarios are the truth. And so it presents the ridiculous, and asks us to believe it. Cutting to the chase, the man seen opening an umbrella comes forward to explain why he did it. Reason: in 1963, he was still mad at Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler, and held JFK’s father to blame as US ambassador to England in that period. Chamberlain was famed for carrying an umbrella. So—get this—Umbrella Man, hoping to make a statement about what happened in the late 1930s to JFK in 1963, pumped his umbrella at the time the fatal shots were fired…only for this obscure purpose.

The Times passes the responsibility for this travesty to Morris, who passes it along to Josiah Thompson, a former Navy underwater demolitions expert turned Yale philosophy professor turned private investigator, who appears on-screen to ruminate about “Umbrella Man.” He is happy to accept the Chamberlain story as “delightful weirdness.”

Watching this, one gets the sense that Thompson believes there was no conspiracy in JFK’s death. But what the Times implies with this little piece is false. In fact, Josiah Thompson is known for documenting the exact opposite. He wrote a serious investigative book in 1967, “Six Seconds in Dallas,” full of evidence and specifics, in which he concluded there was a conspiracy to kill JFK—involving three different shooters. But the New York Times is not interested in that, only in this new, droll dismissal of another piece of the puzzle.

I called Thompson to ask him about the Morris video, and he pronounced himself delighted with it. I asked him how he knew that the man who came forward to identify himself as Umbrella Man and present the Neville Chamberlain story was actually the same man in the fuzzy photo of many years earlier. By way of explanation, he mentioned hearing a story from a well-respected JFK researcher who in turn had heard that Umbrella Man had told his dentist years earlier that he was umbrella man. Pressing Thompson, I learned that the man who came forward as Umbrella Man never provided proof that he was in fact the man with the umbrella. Even the dentist story is third, fourth, or perhaps fifth hand, not verified by Thompson or his researcher friend. All of which proves nothing, and all of which suggests that maybe, just maybe, the man’s improbable, “delightful” story of Neville Chamberlain is, indeed, fabricated.

Just because Errol Morris is a master of the documentary art does not make him any kind of authority on what should be the province of careful investigators. Just because a story is absurd does not make it real, or “delightful”, as the Times video would like us to consider—and many did, with thousands emailing the Times piece to friends. This is something well understood by the game-players of the covert operations house of mirrors: the Jesuitical contortions that can be made to twist any credible scenario.

Here are some things you should know about the man who came forward to identify himself as Umbrella Man and tell this ludicrous Neville Chamberlain story:

His account of his activities that day don’t track with what Umbrella Man actually did, raising questions as to whether this man who volunteered to testify to the assassination inquiry is even the real umbrella-bearer, or someone whose purpose was to end inquiries into the matter.

The man who came forward, Louie Steven Witt, was a young man at the time of Kennedy’s death. How many young men in Dallas in 1963 even knew what Neville Chamberlain had done a quarter-century before?

In 1963, Witt was an insurance salesman for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance company, which anchored the eponymous Rio Grande Building in downtown Dallas. It’s an interesting building. Among the other outfits housed in the building was the Office of Immigration and Naturalization—a place Lee Harvey Oswald visited repeatedly upon his return from Russia, ostensibly to deal with matters concerning the immigration status of his Russian-born wife, Marina. Another occupant of the Rio Grande Building was the US Secret Service, so notably lax in its protection of Kennedy that day, breaking every rule of security on

every level.

A major client of Rio Grande was the US military, to which it provided insurance.

It’s worth considering the roles of military-connected figures on the day of the assassination. These include Dallas Military Intelligence unit chief Jack Crichton operating secretly from an underground communications bunker; Crichton’s providing a translator who twisted Marina Oswald’s statement to police in a way that implicated her husband; and members of military intelligence forcing their way into the pilot car of Kennedy’s motorcade, which inexplicably ground to a halt in front of the Texas School Book Depository (where Lee Harvey Oswald’s employer, a high official with the local military-connected American Legion, managed to find a “job” for Oswald at a time when his company was otherwise seasonally laying off staff.) Oh, and it’s worth contemplating JFK’s titanic, if under-reported, struggle with top Pentagon officials over how the US should interact with Russia, Cuba, and the rest of the world. You can read more about all this in my book Family of Secrets.

Is this concatenation of facts too crazy to consider? More crazy than that Neville Chamberlain story?

THE JACK AND JACKIE LOVE STORY

Not content with having Morris, who is no Kennedy expert, put out this misleading video on Umbrella Man, the Times earlier featured Morris’s book review of Stephen King’s novel imagining Lee Harvey Oswald. So now you have a man who knows little about the real story, getting people to read the imaginings of one who also knows little of the real story. Another way to look at this is that the New York Times is really, really interested in an occult novelist’s take on the death of a president, but just totally uninterested itself in looking into that death.

You must read Errol Morris’s review of King’s book, and please explain to me what he is talking about, because I have no idea. One of the few things that registered at all from this confusing mess is a comment about Jack and Jackie:

King has said that he struggled with the idea for this book for more than 30 years. One can see why. In fiction, we can decide who did or did not kill Kennedy. Writer’s choice (and King chooses). But he pays his debts to history in other ways — by showing the machine and, at the same time, the simplest human knots, the love stories behind history: Sadie and George[characters in the novel], Jack and Jackie.

Um, “the love stories behind history…Jack and Jackie”?

This is part and parcel of the Times’s approach: to maintain a feeble, People Magazine-like focus on the JFK-Jackie Camelot love story—which never actually existed. Anyone who has read any of the books featuring interviews with close friends of the couple know that the marriage was a political match for the reticent JFK, never for a minute a fairy tale romance, and that by 1963 the duo could barely stand to be in each other’s presence. If this is news to you, come out of your New York Times cave and read….practically anything else. (One worthwhile account—including Jackie explicitly ignoring JFK’s request that, for appearances’ sake, the First Lady not take off to cruise on the yacht of the caddish Aristotle Onassis in the fall of 1963—can be found in Peter Evans’s book, Nemesis. By the way, Onassis hated—and I mean hated—the Kennedys; RFK had blocked a big Onassis business deal years earlier.)

Or read in Family of Secrets how, since childhood, Jackie had been a friend of George de Mohrenschildt, the “father figure” to Lee Harvey Oswald, or how, the night after de Mohrenschildt’s testimony to the Warren Commission, Oswald’s best friend was invited to dinner at Jackie’s mother’s house, along with the Machiavellian intriguer Allen Dulles, whom JFK had fired as CIA director and whom Johnson so shockingly appointed to the Warren Commission investigating Kennedy’s killing—a man who surely is at the top of most people’s lists of those behind the assassination.

If you appreciate these sorts of things, it is striking to learn that Onassis was a business partner in oil deals in the Caribbean prior to Castro’s revolution, with….Oswald’s best friend George de Mohrenschildt, and that Onassis’ brother-in-law was the cover employer of CIA coup plotter Al Ulmer, who just happened to be visiting the Dallas area the week of Nov 22 1963 from abroad.

So, please, can we get past this “love story” pabulum and at least do just a teensy bit of investigating these odd and flagrantly suggestive connections? Maybe they’re all odd coincidences, but at least they seem, intuitively, worth pursuing, at least as much as those “delightfully weird” Neville Chamberlain umbrella stories.

The real danger of a video like the one about the Umbrella Man is that it encourages people to stop questioning, stop investigating. Just laugh it all off. There’s no trouble here in the land of the free, the home of the brave. Nothing to see here, folks, move along, move along.

***

It’s time to stop treating the New York Times as the slightly daffy uncle who is hard of hearing. There’s something more insidious going on, and every single person who works there and refuses to care bears some responsibility. Ditto with the rest of the media, which still takes this institution as its guide on what to cover—and what not to uncover.

Read more: http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/11/28/ny-times%e2%80%99-umbrella-man-exposed/#ixzz1f1uaR92O

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE (1989), pp. 29-33.

The Umbrella Man, Part I

Jim Marrs

About the time that Kennedy was first hit by a bullet, two men standing near each other on the north sidewalk of Elm Street acted most strangely—one began pumping a black umbrella while the other waved his right arm high in the air.

These and subsequent actions by this pair aroused the suspicions of researchers over the years, yet the initial federal investigation ignored both men. Their activities are known only through analysis of assassination photographs.

As Kennedy’s limousine began the gentle descent into Dealey Plaza, a man can be seen standing near the street-side edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign holding an open umbrella. He holds the umbrella in a normal fashion and the top of the umbrella almost reaches the bottom of the sign.

In photos taken minutes before Kennedy’s arrival, the umbrella is closed and, immediately after the shooting, pictures show the umbrella was closed again. The man’s umbrella was only open during the shooting sequence. Furthermore, as seen in the Zapruder film, once Kennedy is exactly opposite the man with the umbrella, it was pumped almost two feet into the air and then lowered.

At the same time, the second man—in photos he appears to be of a dark complexion, perhaps a black man or Hispanic—raised his right hand into the air possibly making a fist. This man was located on the outer edge of the Elm Street sidewalk opposite the umbrella man, who was on the inner edge.

The man with the open umbrella was the only person in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella. Under the warm Texas sun, there was no reason to carry an open umbrella at that time.

Two main theories have emerged concerning the “umbrella man” and his activities that day. Assassination researcher Robert Cutler has long maintained that the umbrella may have been a sophisticated weapon that fired a dart or “flechette” filled with a paralyzing agent. Cutler’s theory has been the object of dirision over the years but it is supported by the 1975 testimony of a CIA weapons developer who told the Senate Intelligence Committee that just such an umbrella weapon was in the hands of the spy agency in 1963.

Charles Senseney, who developed weaponry for the CIA at Fort Detrick, Maryland, described a dart-firing weapon he developed as looking like an umbrella. He said the dart gun was silent in operation and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was open. Senseney said the CIA had ordered about fifty such dart weapons and that they were operational in 1963.

Cutler theorized that the umbrella was used to fire a paralyzing dart into Kennedy immobilizing him for marksmen with rifles. He claims this theory accounts for the small puncture wound in Kennedy’s throat described by Dallas doctors, but which was altered by the time of the Bethesda autopsy. According to Cutler, this dart explains Kennedy’s lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Since such a weapon existed and since both the actions of Kennedy and the “umbrella man” were consistent with the operation of such a weapon, Cutler’s theory cannot be completely dismissed.

However, most assassination researchers prefer the alternative theory that both of these suspicious men may have been providing visual signals to hidden gunmen. This theory suggests that Kennedy was killed by a crossfire coordinated by radiomen. The two men, who were among the closest bystanders to the President when he was first struck, gave signals indicating that he was not fatally hit and therefore more shots were needed.

A fascinating twist on this latter theory came from researcher Gary Shaw, who said the two men may have been providing Kennedy with a last-second sign of who was responsible for his death. Shaw recalled that throughout the planning of the Bay of Pigs invasion, CIA officers had promised an “umbrella” of air protection of the Cuban invaders. This “umbrella” failed to materialize because Kennedy refused to authorize U.S. military support for the invasion. According to Shaw’s theory, the man with the open umbrella symbolized the promise of an air-support “umbrella” while the dark-complected man may have been one of the anti-Castro Cuban leaders known to Kennedy. Thus, in the last seconds of his life, Kennedy may have seen the open umbrella and the face of a Cuban he knew was involved in the Bay of Pigs and realized who was participating in his death.

But this is all speculation. The existence of the “umbrella man” and the dark-complexion man is fact. Their activities after the assassination especially bear study. While virtually everyone in Dealey Plaza was moved to action by the assassination—either falling to the ground for cover or moving toward The Grassy Knoll—these two men sat down beside each other on the north sidewalk of Elm Street.

Edited November 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim Marrs, CROSSFIRE (1989), pp. 29-33.

The Umbrella Man, Part II

Jim Marrs

Here the dark-complexion man appears to put a walkie-talkie to his mouth. In a photograph taken by Jim Towner, what seems to be an antenna can be seen jutting out from behind the man’s head while his right hand holds some object to his face.

Several photos taken in the seconds following the assassination show both of these men sitting together on the Elm Street sidewalk. Moments later, the man with the umbrella gets up, takes one last look toward the motorcade still passing under the Triple Underpass, and begins walking east in the direction of the Depository. The dark-complexion man saunters toward the Triple Underpass passing people rushing up The Grassy Knoll. He can be seen stuffing some object—the walkie-talkie?—into the back of his pants.

Despite the suspicious actions of these two men, there is no evidence that the FBI or the Warren Commission made any effort to identify or locate them. Officially they did not exist. Yet over the years, this pair became the focal point of criticism by private researchers. Researchers claimed the lack of investigation of these men was indicative of the shallowness of the government’s handling of the assassination.

Once the House Select Committee on Assassinations was formed in 1976, researchers urged an investigation of both men. The Committee finally released a photograph of the “umbrella man” to the news media and urged anyone with knowledge of the man to come forward.

Coincidentally—if it was a coincidence—the “umbrella man” suddenly was identified in Dallas a few weeks after this national appeal. In August 1978, a telephone caller told researcher Penn Jones, Jr., that the man with the umbrella was a former Dallas insurance salesman named Louis Steven Witt. Jones contacted some local newsmen (Jim Marrs being one of them) and together they confronted Witt, who then was working as a warehouse manager. Witt refused to talk with newsmen but acknowledged that he was in Dealey Plaza on the day Kennedy was killed.

Jones later wrote: “I felt the man had been coached. He would answer no questions and pointedly invited us to leave. His only positive statement, which seemed to come very quickly, was that he was willing to appear before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in Washington.”

Witt indeed appeared before the Committee during its public testimony. His story was comic relief compared to the intense scrutiny of witnesses like Marina Oswald and Warren Commission critics. His story was facile and improbable and when the umbrella that Witt claimed was the same one he had had in Dealey Plaza in 1963 was displayed, it suddenly turned wrong-side out, prompting one Committee member to quip: “I hope that’s not a weapon.”

Witt told the Committee that on the spur of the moment, he grabbed a large black umbrella and went to Dealey Plaza to heckle Kennedy. He claimed that someone had told him that an open umbrella would rile Kennedy. While Witt offered no further explanation of how his umbrella could heckle the president, Committee members – not Witt -- theorized that the umbrella in some way referred to the pro-German sympathies of Kennedy’s father while serving as U.S. ambassador to Britain just prior to World War II. They said the umbrella may have symbolized the appeasement policies of Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who always carried an umbrella.

According to Witt:

I think I went sort of maybe halfway up the grassy area [on the north side of Elm Street], somewhere in that vicinity. I am pretty sure I sat down. . . . [when the motorcade approached] I think I got up and started fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open, and at the same time I was walking forward, walking toward the street. . . . Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me . . . My view of the car during that length of time was blocked by the umbrella’s being open.

Based on the available photographs made that day, none of Witt’s statements were an accurate account of the actions of the “umbrella man” who stood waiting for the motorcade with his umbrella in the normal over-the-head position and then pumped it in the air as Kennedy passed.

Witt’s bizarre story—unsubstantiated and totally at variance with the actions of the man in the photographs—resulted in few, if any, researchers accepting Louis Steven Witt as the “umbrella man.”

And there continues to be no official accounting for the dark-complexion man who appears to have been talking on a radio moments after the assassination. The House Committee failed to identify or locate this man and Witt claimed he had no recollection of such a person, despite photographs that seem to show the “umbrella man” talking with the dark man.

Witt claimed only to recall that a “Negro man” sat down near him and kept repeating: “They done shot them folks.”

Interestingly, one of the Committee attorneys asked Witt specifically if he recalled seeing the man with a walkie-talkie, although officially no one has ever admitted the possibility of radios in use in Dealey Plaza.

Edited November 28, 2011 by James H. Fetzer