Tink's performance in The New York Times

[Cliff Varnell]

It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man.

Don, we agree on the major points of the assassination but we disagree here.

Witt's testimony matches Rosemary Willis' description of him:

From 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.

Witt to the HSCA:

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.

Witt has been called a xxxx because, according to the Willis 5 photo, he had the umbrella up by Z202 in time to see the limo. But that doesn't mean he'd attain instant visual lock on JFK, does it? Might it not have taken a moment or two to orient his view of the motorcade?

His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.

I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"

Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.

Witt was engaged in a personal protest. He didn't bring any friends along, he wasn't part of a movement. He wanted to wave "Chamberlain's umbrella" at JFK for his own personal satisfaction. At an Occupy Oakland event last month I walked by a Fox News van and shouted out the Bob Dylan lyric from "Ballad of a Thin Man" -- "Something's happening but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?" I didn't even bother to see if anyone in the van had heard me. Didn't matter. I got a measure of satisfaction shouting that lyric at a Fox News van, just like Witt got satisfaction waving his umbrella.

I find this whole Louis Witt fiasco extremely unfortunate. It's taken the blood-soluble fleschette scenario down a whimsical rabbit hole where it doesn't belong.

Don, the cardinal facts of the JFK assassination are that JFK was shot in the back at the level of his third thoracic vertebra and the round did not exit. He was shot in the throat from the front and the round did not exit. I'm confident that you agree with me on this.

Neither rounds were recovered during the autopsy, which leaves two possibilities: the rounds were removed pre-autopsy, or the rounds dissolved.

The autopsists regarded the latter as a serious possibility the night of the autopsy. They spurred Sibert of the FBI to call the FBI lab to see if there was such weaponry as rounds that dissolve in the body. It was a brief but competent investigation that was immediately de-railed.

There is much evidence to support the conclusion that JFK was struck with a blood soluble paralytic. Unfortunately, all this emphasis on Umbrella Man has detracted from the serious consideration the blood-soluble flechette scenario deserves.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Don Jeffries]

Cliff, we respectfully disagree about this. As you note, we share the same views about the most important aspects of this case.

Ultimately, the Umbrella Man is pretty small stuff, when looking at the big picture of the JFK assassination. However, as I've stated many times on this forum, I don't get the willingness on the part of so many CTers to abandon what most of us have long believed are strong indications of conspiracy, without due cause. Witt's story makes little sense, imho, and he appeared at a very opportune moment for Blakey and the HSCA. It falls into a familiar pattern of fanciful explanations to long held suspicions that appear dubious to those of us who've studied the record.

Despite the fact that Pat and perhaps others could distinguish a connection between an umbrella being opened on a sunny day, in front of a President of the United States about to be assassinated, and the appeasement views of Neville Chamberlain and/or Joe Kennedy, I don't think very many Americans, in or out of Dealey Plaza at the time, could have done so. Witt's story makes as much sense, imho, as David Ferrie's tale about going duck hunting or Ruby's supposed overwhelming urge to spare Jackie Kennedy from having to testify at Oswald's trial. And again, they are all part of a clear pattern, at least to me.

What I most object to, however, is the certainty with which so many CTers seem to declare that Witt was the Umbrella Man. Now I admit that I've been just as emphatic about stating that he wasn't TUM. At the very least, I would think that everyone ought to acknowledge there is reasonable doubt here. Some of us seem so concerned about a collective image of the CT community, that can't be painted as "wacko" by those who aren't remotely interested in the truth about this subject, that we've ceded ground on numerous issues that once formed the basis for disbelieving the official story.

[John Dolva]

It may not matter whether De Witt was the UM or not.I think that De Witt, becomes of some interest if one reads the report into militant right wing groups (5 vols and index 1965 from memory.) There is Elizabeth De Witt (KKK Ohio) and others that may be of interest describing costings and methods to assassinate. If there's no connection so what? if there is, well. As the question of DE Witts role is a question, this may lead to an answer.

[Bernice Moore]

Duncan, thank you for sharing the photo work, but i have a question , how can you possibly distinguish positively, between the real DCM AND SO MANY OTHER MEN WEARING DARK CAPS OR HAVING DARK HAIR, AND LIGHT JACKETS WITHIN THOSE SHOTS,in the crowds shown, AND YES I HAVE TRIED TO FOLLOW HIM WITHIN FRAMES SHOT ON HIS JoURNEY sorry caps, down toward the underpass...he does eventually get lost amongst the others imo..and imo becomes lost in the crowd..as all we see is a dark cap , no facal features, and a light jacket........thanks b.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

It may not matter whether De Witt was the UM or not.I think that De Witt, becomes of some interest if one reads the report into militant right wing groups (5 vols and index 1965 from memory.) There is Elizabeth De Witt (KKK Ohio) and others that may be of interest describing costings and methods to assassinate. If there's no connection so what? if there is, well. As the question of DE Witts role is a question, this may lead to an answer.

John, somewhere, though i have not been able to bring it forth as yet, there is a Secret Service actions report, that if such any umbrella's

were opened along a Presidential parade route or similar or other suspicious actions, the SS would be all over the whomever, so that brings up the question, of the why again, the ss did not move to grab said umbrellaman on elm street........i am still searching, i may contact Vince as he would know, i'm sure it probably is on a report he may have found and issued for us.....thanks..b

[Bernice Moore]

...that strikes me as odd. As does why the Cuban looking guy would be raising his arm in the air.

Apparently waving at the President during a public motorcade is considered suspicious activity in Jim DiEugenio's eyes. Amazing.

David, if interested, close in on what the cuban does with his hand in a film clip, he is not waving...imo...b

Edited November 25, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

how can you possibly distinguish positively, between the real DCM AND SO MANY OTHER MEN WEARING DARK CAPS OR HAVING DARK HAIR, AND LIGHT JACKETS WITHIN THOSE SHOTS,in the crowds shown

Bernice,

I can distinguish him as being unique from any others wearing similar clothes, because of the unique to him only bump of an object which some suggest is a Radio, tucked in to the back of his pants, and underneath his jacket.

This bump appears in ALL images,both film and photographs, of DCM from a rear and/or left side view.

Many Thanks, Duncan i will check it out, hope all is well, take care...best b

[Bernice Moore]

It may not matter whether De Witt was the UM or not.I think that De Witt, becomes of some interest if one reads the report into militant right wing groups (5 vols and index 1965 from memory.) There is Elizabeth De Witt (KKK Ohio) and others that may be of interest describing costings and methods to assassinate. If there's no connection so what? if there is, well. As the question of DE Witts role is a question, this may lead to an answer.

John, somewhere, though i have not been able to bring it forth as yet, there is a Secret Service actions report, that if such any umbrella's

were opened along a Presidential parade route or similar or other suspicious actions, the SS would be all over the whomever, so that brings up the question, of the why again, the ss did not move to grab said umbrellaman on elm street........i am still searching, i may contact Vince as he would know, i'm sure it probably is on a report he may have found and issued for us.....thanks..b

John; this is all i have found so far, there is i am quite sure a much clearer report on this from Vince, but...will keep looking.......thanks..b

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2011/03/chapter-6-security-stripping-further.html Agent Rufus Youngblood revealed that the Secret Service was trained to prevent anyone from holding items in their hands that were suspicious in nature, and that, as an example, if during a bright, sun-shiny day, a man is observed wearing a raincoat, the agents are to react promptly. Former Agent George J. McNally specifically mentioned, “an umbrella carried on a sunny day” as something to be suspicious of in his book. However, during the same weather conditions in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, a man is allowed to hold up high an open umbrella---and the agents do nothing...not one agent even mentioned this strange episode. Again, no action was taken against this man, nor was any mention made of him, either written or oral. Ironically, at the James Rowley Beltsville Maryland Secret Service Training Facility, people with umbrellas pop up in mock motorcades to this day!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Lifton asks for "credible evidence" that he is not the person he claimed to be to the HSCA.

As I have previously observed, the Umbrella Man and the Cuban were obviously together:

An explanation of the presence of the Umbrella Man must account for their association.

They did not act surprised by the assassination. And their faces have been obscured:

I cannot imagine why Lifton should think that the indefensible fantasy spun by Witt

should be taken seriously. Tink's objective is to undermine and ridicule belief in a

JFK conspiracy, which is why he suppresses evidence. Surely Lifton can do better.

It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.

I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"

Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.

Please provide credible evidence that the man who testified before the HSCA and identified himself as Steven Witt was not who he said he was.

Note what I requested--not some restatement of your suspicions, but genuine evidence that he was not who he said he was, and/or that his entire account was a fraud.

Do you have any real data--or are you, too, clinging to a thoroughly refuted conspiracy hypothesis?

Alleging something was a "fairy tale" is not evidence.

DSL

11/24/11 - 11:49 PM PST

Los Angeles, CA

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Without suggesting that Dunan MacRae has been taking us for a ride, but how can his video clip be

authentic when they are still here? Surely, their behavior is abnormal under these circumstances:

If we can find our way back to the real issue, which is that Tink is abusing his position to debunk

conspiracy theories, I have made a serious of arguments that demonstrate what's going on here:

(1) Tink assumes that the Umbrella man was Louie Steven Witt. But that is a conclusion that requires

evidence. In logic, this is called "begging the question" by assuming what requires independent proof.

(2) The umbrella he presented is not the umbrella held by the Umbrella man, since it has the wrong

number of spokes. So in claiming it was the same, Witt was lying and demonstrating he is a fraud.

(3) Josiah exaggerates the role of the Umbrella man to make it easier to attack by suggesting that

critics believe he had some kind of weapon cloaked inside the umbrella. This attacking a straw man.

(4) He treats the Umbrella man as though he were separate and apart from the Cuban, who raises

his fist in an apparent gesture to Greer to bring the limo to a halt, which is what Green then did.

(5) Presenting only part of the evidence (known as "special pleading"), Tink does not report that

this person was pumping the umbrella up and down in an apparent signal to "continue firing".

(6) He does not acknowledge that they were clearly together and remained seated on the curb for

some time, where they were photographed, before they stood up and walked in opposite directions.

(7) He ignores that more reasonable identifications would be of the Cuban as Felipe Vidal Santiago,

a committed anti-Castro Cuban, and of Roy Hargraves, who fit the photos and the scenario to a "t".

(8) The very idea that he would offer this fantastic story about Joe Kennedy, which is preposterous

on its face, as though it was "so extraordinary and unbelievable it must be true", is clearly absurd.

(9) It is far more likely that he was signaling to the assassins that JFK was still alive, which makes

sense, rather than an obscure historical allusion that no one, including Jack, would have grasped.

(10) And remarking that there are always alternative explanations may be true, when you isolate

one element of a complex picture, a technique used here that is known as "divide and conquer".

(11) If all you knew were what Tink presents in this little clip, then you might easily be taken in;

once you consider the other evidence we have available, his scenario is not remotely plausible.

(12) That so many on a forum would be taken in by a blatant display of disinformation is beyond

me. It reinforces my belief that most who post here don't have even a clue about what's going on.

Bernice has astutely pointed out that the theory of a dart device, which Tink ridicules, has a basis

in fact and therefore should count as one more ground that impugns his duplicitous performance:

So, if we can pry our attention from Lifton and others who have bought into a fantasy scenario,

I want to know if any of you comprehend that Tink Thompson is gutting JFK conspiracy research?

[Cliff Varnell]

To me this says it all.

When you have the likes of DVP and Duncan joining forces with Lifton and Tink and Speer, and people getting up on soap boxes to buy into one of the silliest stories imaginable, well talk about the triumph of the NY Times. I mean what is next: Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD that morning in a brown wrapper?

Louis Witt is a major distraction from the significant issues relating to the use of flechette weapons.

This "silly story" of Louis Witt's is partially corroborated by Rosemary Willis.

Let me repeat the nuttiness of this argument: The whole Chamberlain imbroglio took place from about 1938-40. So it is about 25 years before the assassination. Let me repeat that, TWENTY FIVE YEARS previous: a quarter of a century, over two decades.

Now what on earth did JFK have to do with it? He was at Harvard. In fact, he was writing his thesis which criticized England's policies leading up to the war as too mild and not preparing for war; this was later turned into a book.

With all due respect Jim, you're looking at this like an historian. Louis Witt was making a personal protest to satisfy himself.

As I wrote in my post to Don Jefferies, I had a similar experience last month when I walked by a Fox News van parked near the Occupy Oakland encampment and shouted out lyrics from Bob Dylan's "Ballad of a Thin Man" -- "Something's happening but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?" That song came out in 1965. I couldn't tell if there was someone in the van or not. Even if there were, what chances would that person know I was quoting Dylan? It did not matter one whit. I amused myself, just as Witt was amusing himself.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

What I most object to, however, is the certainty with which so many CTers seem to declare that Witt was the Umbrella Man.

Don, I'm allergic to witness bashing. I really am. Whenever I see a First Day Witness bashed or dismissed out of hand I get ticked. I think the First Day Witnesses of 11/22/63 at Dealey, Parkland and Bethesda are the unsung heroes of our lifetime.

I think Rosemary Willis is an excellent witness and her actions on the Zapruder film tell us a good deal about the shooting sequence.

Her testimony supports Witt, whose story doesn't strike me as "crazy" or "silly" at all.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, OWS is happening now.

Munich happened in 1938.

What did JFK have to do with it?

It was JFK's policies Witt was comparing to Chamberlain. Comparing Laos Accords with Munich, I'd think.

It was a protest that took place entirely inside Louis Witt's head. He did something to get a kick out of it, just like I shouted at the Fox News van and got a kick out of it.

I think we should drop this and direct Tink Thompson to the Church Committee testimonies of William Colby and Charles Senseney.

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

[Cliff Varnell]

If we can find our way back to the real issue, which is that Tink is abusing his position to debunk conspiracy theories,

I don't have a problem with Tink Thompson debunking conspiracy theories, I have a problem with Tink Thompson ignoring the basic physical facts of the case.

He smugly claims that there is an "innocent" explanation for every fact considered "sinister" but he habitually dismisses the clothing evidence/T3 back wound with no explanation at all, other than to mis-label it a "controversy."

Hey Tink! Turn you head to the right and glance down at your shirt along the right shoulder-line.

Then slowly raise your arm and wave to the crowd a la JFK in the motorcade.

Observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT as your raise your arm.

Sorry for your debunked "cautionary tale," Tink, but indentation is the opposite of the multi-inch clothing bulge required by your "innocent explanation."

Edited November 25, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

Bernice has astutely pointed out that the theory of a dart device, which Tink ridicules,

That's because he doesn't understand the basic facts of the case -- JFK was shot in the back at T3 and in the throat from the front.

Tink would rather spend News Years Eve getting a root canal than attempt a fact-based challenge to these conclusions.