Josiah Thompson & the Umbrella man

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Bernice puts her finger on one more reason to question Tink's performance in The New York Times, which is that

the use of an umbrella weapon is not that far-fetched, where I accent that it is not necessary to have been used

for such a purpose to expose Josiah as undermining belief in conspiracies with a fabricated performance here:

Posted Today, 07:06 PM

Most of those who pass for students of JFK have no idea how to sort out even a case as simple as this.

(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.

James H. Fetzer, on 24 November 2011 - 05:39 AM, said:

A very curious interview with Mary Moorman who seems to have fallen out with Jean Hill,

http://www.conspirac...er-silence.html

An even more peculiar interview with Tink in The New York Times on the Umbrella Man,

http://www.nytimes.c...brella-man.html

OP-DOCS

‘The Umbrella Man’: A video interview with the author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967)

The Umbrella Man: On the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Errol Morris explores the story behind the one man seen standing under an open black umbrella at the site.

By ERROL MORRIS

Published: November 21, 2011

COMMENTS (254)

For years, I’ve wanted to make a movie about the John F. Kennedy assassination. Not because I thought I could prove that it was a conspiracy, or that I could prove it was a lone gunman, but because I believe that by looking at the assassination, we can learn a lot about the nature of investigation and evidence. Why, after 48 years, are people still quarreling and quibbling about this case? What is it about this case that has led not to a solution, but to the endless proliferation of possible solutions?

Years ago, Josiah Thompson, known as Tink, a young, Yale-educated Kierkegaard scholar wrote the definitive book on the Zapruder film — “Six Seconds in Dallas.” Thompson eventually quit his day job as a professor of philosophy at Haverford College to become a private detective and came to work with many of the same private investigators I had also worked with in the 1980s. We had so much in common — philosophy, P.I. work and an obsessive interest in the complexities of reality. But we had never met.

Last year, I finally got to meet and interview Tink Thompson. I hope his interview can become the first part of an extended series on the Kennedy assassination. This film is but a small segment of my six-hour interview with Tink.

Errol Morris is an Academy Award-winning filmmaker (“The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons From the Life of Robert S. McNamara”) and a recent New York Times best-selling author (“Believing Is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography”). His first film, “Gates of Heaven,” is on Roger Ebert’s list of the 10 best movies ever made, and his latest, “Tabloid,” has just been released on DVD. Mr. Morris has received five fellowships from the National Endowment for the Arts, a Guggenheim Fellowship and a MacArthur fellowship. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He lives in Cambridge, Mass., with his wife and two French bulldogs.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: November 22, 2011 An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Josiah Thompson’s career. He left his job as a professor at Haverford College to become a detective — not to write “Six Seconds in Dallas,” which had been written earlier.

where this reader's comment (and there are more than 250) speaks volumes about Josiah:

23. HIGHLIGHT (What's this?)

Mark M

New York, NY

November 22nd, 2011

6:16 am

This was wonderful. The best - and most convincing - debunking of any and all conspiracy theories I have ever seen, and in just 6 minutes too.

Here is what I have submitted, but if the Times is running performance art like this from Josiah, it is not likely that they are going to publish it:

Your Submitted Comment

Display Name

James H. Fetzer

Location

Oregon, WI

Comment

How can Josiah Thompson have written "the definitive book" on the Zapruder film when its fabrication has been proven beyond reasonable doubt? The limo stop was removed, the wounds were changed, and, having reduced the time frame, Clint Hill's activities--about which he has been consistent for more than 47 years--contradict what we see in the extant film. See, for example, "JFK: Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?" For more on how it was done, see "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication". For a tutorial on some of the ways we know the film we have is not the original, see John Costella, "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax", http://assassination...ella/jfk/intro/ I dismembered Josiah's feeble defense of the authenticity of the film in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Check it out. The American people are entitled to the truth about the assassination of our 35th president. It isn't a close call.

I hate to say "I told you so", but I nailed Tink as an op a long time ago and was attacked for doing so. I also observed earlier that he was setting himself up to proclaim that there was no conspiracy, after all. How many falsehoods and misrepresentations does Josiah Thompson make in this six minute video?

Jim

Josiah Thompson, on 24 November 2011 - 06:14 PM, said:

On Thanksgiving morning, there is nothing like the smell of vitriol in the air.

When Professor Fetzer loses an argument he calls the other party an “op” or stupid. Since he’s lost numerous arguments to me over the years, his claim is old and tired. In the good professor’s infinite wisdom, he also claims to know what I am going to do in the future. This too is a bit old and tired. According to him, I’m going “to proclaim there was no conspiracy after all.”

Thank you, Professor. Once again you’ve given me the opportunity of proving you categorically, irredeemably WRONG!!

For the last six months, I’ve been working on a new manuscript. I found in Washington at the AARC all my old transcripts of Dallas witnesses. They are quite wonderful. In addition, I went to Dallas and spent two afternoons looking at the MPI transparencies. They too are quite wonderful. The consequence of this work is that I think I can now correct some mistakes I made forty years ago. JFK’s head did not dramatically move forward between 312 and 313 and that means we are seeing the impact of a bullet from the right front, not the exit of a bullet from the rear. The last forty years have made certain aspects of the assassination much clearer. Although I cannot as yet come up with a complete reconstruction of what happened, I think I’ve made good progress on part of it. It’s appearance will prove once again that the Professor is not just wrong but silly. So what else is new.

I’ve come to have great respect for the knowledge and acuity of many who post on this forum. I’ve also come to recognize that I don’t know all the answers and don’t even know where to look for the answers. I mention this because I look forward to raising research questions on this forum and asking for your help.

Let me ask one now. It’s much more useful than jousting with Fetzer.

I’ve read at some point or other that Dallas policemen who ran into the knoll area encountered railroad men who told them they saw smoke. We know that several men standing with S.M. Holland on the overpass saw smoke near the stockade fence. The fact that Dallas police officers submitted reports or said they encountered such individuals gives even more credence to their claims. Can anyone direct me to these reports by Dallas police officers? Thanks.

JT

These two go with past research...showing the possible dart and the use of such in a gun as well as umbrella and or cane as mentioned...b

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From an earlier thread here, "Umbrella Man", circa 2007, which I believe was composed by Jack White:

[Bernice Moore]

Pat; finally found it......

http://www.jfk-assas...es/umbrella.php Most of the assassination researchers prefer this first theory. But there is another one that cannot be dismissed. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely.

about 50 of them....b

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Here is what John McAdams has to say about the Umbrella man at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm. No one finds it curious that Josiah is sounding more and more like a McAdams clone? And, as I previously observed, he is denying the most important proofs of conspiracy in his book, including, especially, the double-hit theory, which was its strongest and most scientific contribution, to set up his denial of any conspiracy, which is most certainly coming; indeed, this sequence may well conclude with his renunciation in The New York Times, where Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media", ROLLING STONE (1977), reported officials of the CIA had acknowledged as one of their greatest successes:

The Umbrella Man

Was this fellow, standing in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella and no rain in sight part of some conspiracy? The House Select Committee on Assassinations located the Umbrella Man -- a fellow named Louis Witt who was engaged in a somewhat obscure form of political protest. Here are two graphics, one showing Louis Witt's umbrella being opened before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, to the general merriment of all assembled. The second shows the Umbrella Man's umbrella in the Zapruder film in Dealey Plaza. Both of these images are video captures from the NOVA documentary. Here is the first one, and here is the second. Some conspiratorialists claim that the umbrellas are different, having a different number of spokes. Decide for yourself.

What was the point of the umbrella in Dealey Plaza? Apparently it was an attempt to heckle Kennedy with a reminder of the appeasement policies of British Prime Minister Nevill Chamberlain, whose weak posture toward Hitler was supported by Kennedy's father. Sounds pretty obscure to us today. But this 1930s British cartoon links the umbrella (Chamberlain's trademark) with weakness toward Nazism.

One of the more bizarre theories about The Umbrella man comes from Robert Cutler. Cutler claimed that the umbrella was a weapon firing a flechette (poisoned dart) that hit Kennedy in the throat, paralyzing Kennedy to set him up for the head shot. Here is Cutler's drawing of this concept.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Great work, Bernice, as always. But a dart from the side would not have created a through-and-through hole in the windshield nor the two tiny shrapnel wounds in JFK's face described by Thomas Evan Robinson, which David Mantik has suggested were caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through en route. And the wound to his throat was around its center, not at its side. They existed, but there is no reason to think one was used on JFK.

Pat; finally found it......

http://www.jfk-assas...es/umbrella.php Most of the assassination researchers prefer this first theory. But there is another one that cannot be dismissed. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely.

about 50 of them....b

Edited November 24, 2011 by James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

So 9 minutes after I have initiated a thread about this subject, Ray initiates another?

The PARANOID mind is a wonder to behold.

Since i moved to Long Island more than 30 years ago

I have been a habitual early-morning reader of the New York Times

(not that I necessarily believe a word they say).

I used to have the paper delivered to my door around six am

but nowadays I read it free online

and I read this Errol Morris piece shortly after it first appeared.

But I have been extremely busy of late

and I did not post it here immediately

as I wanted to

hoping that someone with more time on hand

would post it anyway.

Yesterday afternoon I finished work early

on account of the Thanksgiving holiday,

& finally got a few spare moments. I checked the forum

and saw that no one else had posted the article,

so I hit the button to start a new thread,

something I rarely do.

Coincidences do sometimes happen,

and after I finished posting

I saw that Jim Fetzer had just finished posting

the self-same article.

So now Jim sees something sinister in this

which does not surprise me

having dealt with some of the GARRISON FANATICS

who inhabit this forum.

[Bernice Moore]

here is Charles Senseney,information, the man i understand, who created and made the weapons...fyi..it is in pdf...b

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

Great work, Bernice, as always. But a dart from the side would not have created a through-and-through hole in the windshield nor the two tiny shrapnel wounds in JFK's face described by Thomas Evan Robinson, which David Mantik has suggested were caused by shards of glass when the bullet passed through en route. And the wound to his throat was around its center, not at its side. They existed, but there is no reason to think one was used on JFK.

Pat; finally found it......

http://www.jfk-assas...es/umbrella.php Most of the assassination researchers prefer this first theory. But there is another one that cannot be dismissed. Researcher Robert Cutler claimed that the umbrella may have been a dart-firing weapon. This is supported by the testimony of a CIA weapons developer in 1975 (1). He told the Senate's Intelligence Committee that such an umbrella was in use in 1963. He described the weapon as looking like an umbrella. He explained the dart gun was silently operating and fired through the webbing when the umbrella was opened. He also said that the CIA ordered about 50 of such guns and that they were operational in 1963. Furthermore, Cutler theorized that Kennedy's throat wound could have been a wound caused by such a dart, but that it was altered during the Bethesda autopsy. This would also explain Kennedy's lack of motion during the shooting sequence. Many researchers think that since such a weapon existed and its operation is consistent with the actions of Umbrella man, this theory can not be ignored completely.

about 50 of them....b

I agree, that is Cutler's work, though it was apparently powerful enough to do so, but as also mentioned by the mortician Robinson ??? filling the leaking small face wounds that could have been made from windshield glass.........b

Edited November 24, 2011 by Bernice Moore

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Ray, I know I can count on you for baseless attacks whenever possible. I thought it was rather curious. That's all

So 9 minutes after I have initiated a thread about this subject, Ray initiates another?

The PARANOID mind is a wonder to behold.

Since i moved to Long Island more than 30 years ago

I have been a habitual early-morning reader of the New York Times

(not that I necessarily believe a word they say).

I used to have the paper delivered to my door around six am

but nowadays I read it free online

and I read this Errol Morris piece shortly after it first appeared.

But I have been extremely busy of late

and I did not post it here immediately

as I wanted to

hoping that someone with more time on hand

would post it anyway.

Yesterday afternoon I finished work early

on account of the Thanksgiving holiday,

& finally got a few spare moments. I checked the forum

and saw that no one else had posted the article,

so I hit the button to start a new thread,

something I rarely do.

Coincidences do sometimes happen,

and after I finished posting

I saw that Jim Fetzer had just finished posting

the self-same article.

So now Jim sees something sinister in this

which does not surprise me

having dealt with some of the GARRISON FANATICS

who inhabit this forum.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Ray, I know I can count on you for baseless attacks whenever possible. I thought it was rather curious. That's all

I have said it before, and I will say it again:

The paranoid mind is a wonder to behold!

[Dean Hagerman]

I enjoyed the little film, I thought Tink did a great job

However, calling Robert Cutler a "wingnut" was very upsetting

My grandpa wrote back and forth with Cutler and was sent almost all of his books, Cutler was a very nice and honest man who was searching for the truth

Do I agree with Cutler about the Umbrella Man? No I do not

Does that make him a "wingnut"? Not at all

[David Andrews]

The Umbrella Delivery System is real and it is accurate. I do not know if it was employed that day or not, but to dismiss it as if it was impossible is irresponsible.

Greg, how could one aim the thing from its position secreted inside an open umbrella? A dart fired without aiming - combat aiming like the soldier is illustrated doing in the period magazine article about the weapon - could have gone anywhere, and into anybody in the car. I doubt The Umbrella Man could have pin-pointed a flechette into JFK's throat or other vulnerable areas.

Was the umbrella weapon designed to hit a seated man passing in an open car, using its downward-pointing ribs? Did it have a target acquiring system? Was it a dart that flew past Connally's left before striking JFK, causing Connally to swat at it with his hat like it was a bee, as we see in Zapruder? Or was that a bullet from the front?

*

One thing that everyone should notice is that if Errol Morris makes a film or films on the assassination, these works are going to be widely seen and commented on, will be made examples of "conspiracy" investigation, and will be associated with the research community.

I'm sure you all know the cautionary tales to add here, though Morris has heretofore been excellent at his metier of using the camera to deconstruct perceived reality. I wish he'd do that the right way for the assassination, for instance examining the film coverage of Dealey Plaza. But, will the research community end up appearing to be a "quantum leap" between perception and reality?

Edited November 25, 2011 by David Andrews

[Don Jeffries]

First of all, anything associated with the JFK assassination that appears in the New York Times is going to be 100% disnfo. If researchers don't know that by now, they know nothing. The mainstream media has never aired or published the truth about the assassination, and it still won't, 48 years after the fact.

I think that Jim Fetzer's prediction about Josiah Thompson coming out publicly as an LNer in time for the 50th anniversary is looking more and more likely. That interview could have been given by Bugliosi, Posner or Gary Mack. The "wingnut" reference was ridiculous, and reveals again where Thompson's true sympathies lie. I'm betting we'll never hear him refer to Bugliosi or any other LNer in such a disparaging way, on television or in misleading interviews with mainstream outlets like this.

Witt was not the Umbrella Man. Period. All knowledgable researchers knew this at the time he belatedly appeared on the scene, and gave his laughable HSCA testimony. As I've noted many times on this forum, those of us who care about this case have given way too much ground on issues like this. The suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man hasn't changed over the years. No evidence has come forth to dispel any conspiratorial notions about his curious actions that day. If you accept that Witt was holding that open umbrella in a protest against JFK's father that few, if any, people on the face of the earth would have comprehended, then you might as well believe that Oswald shot JFK because he was sexually inadequate. You might as well believe that JFK's head went backwards because of some heretofore unknown neuro-muscular reaction that defies the laws of physics. And you may as well accept that JFK's shirt and coat both bunched up several inches, matching each other perfectly, which explains a shot from six stories above exiting from a point higher than the entry wound.

I have no faith in the truth ever being exposed about thie case, or any of the other myriad political crimes which have transpired since that day. The corruption in our society is so pervasive, and the idiocracy that has been created in its wake so extensive, that it is doubtful at this point, imho, whether most Americans would even care if the real facts could somehow be explained to them. The 50th anniversary will be a lone nutter celebration, filled with more Sixth Floor Museum-associated t.v. programs, and more assurances from "journalists" who distort the truth for a living, that Oswald definitely acted alone. There won't even be the usual gathering in Dealy Plaza, since the Sixth Floor Museum has somehow been allowed to "reserve" that public area for the day. At this point, it's very hard to be optimistic.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Don Jeffries

[Bernice Moore]

First of all, anything associated with the JFK assassination that appears in the New York Times is going to be 100% disnfo. If researchers don't know that by now, they know nothing. The mainstream media has never aired or published the truth about the assassination, and it still won't, 48 years after the fact.

I think that Jim Fetzer's prediction about Josiah Thompson coming out publicly as an LNer in time for the 50th anniversary is looking more and more likely. That interview could have been given by Bugliosi, Posner or Gary Mack. The "wingnut" reference was ridiculous, and reveals again where Thompson's true sympathies lie. I'm betting we'll never hear him refer to Bugliosi or any other LNer in such a disparaging way, on television or in misleading interviews with mainstream outlets like this.

Witt was not the Umbrella Man. Period. All knowledgable researchers knew this at the time he belatedly appeared on the scene, and gave his laughable HSCA testimony. As I've noted many times on this forum, those of us who care about this case have given way too much ground on issues like this. The suspicious nature of the Umbrella Man hasn't changed over the years. No evidence has come forth to dispel any conspiratorial notions about his curious actions that day. If you accept that Witt was holding that open umbrella in a protest against JFK's father that few, if any, people on the face of the earth would have comprehended, then you might as well believe that Oswald shot JFK because he was sexually inadequate. You might as well believe that JFK's head went backwards because of some heretofore unknown neuro-muscular reaction that defies the laws of physics. And you may as well accept that JFK's shirt and coat both bunched up several inches, matching each other perfectly, which explains a shot from six stories above exiting from a point higher than the entry wound.

I have no faith in the truth ever being exposed about thie case, or any of the other myriad political crimes which have transpired since that day. The corruption in our society is so pervasive, and the idiocracy that has been created in its wake so extensive, that it is doubtful at this point, imho, whether most Americans would even care if the real facts could somehow be explained to them. The 50th anniversary will be a lone nutter celebration, filled with more Sixth Floor Museum-associated t.v. programs, and more assurances from "journalists" who distort the truth for a living, that Oswald definitely acted alone. There won't even be the usual gathering in Dealy Plaza, since the Sixth Floor Museum has somehow been allowed to "reserve" that public area for the day. At this point, it's very hard to be optimistic.

;)Thank you Don, very well put, though I am still optimistic. b

[Greg Burnham]

The Umbrella Delivery System is real and it is accurate. I do not know if it was employed that day or not, but to dismiss it as if it was impossible is irresponsible.

Greg, how could one aim the thing from its position secreted inside an open umbrella? A dart fired without aiming - combat aiming like the soldier is illustrated doing in the period magazine article about the weapon - could have gone anywhere, and into anybody in the car. I doubt The Umbrella Man could have pin-pointed a flechette into JFK's throat or other vulnerable areas.

Was the umbrella weapon designed to hit a seated man passing in an open car, using its downward-pointing ribs? Did it have a target acquiring system? Was it a dart that flew past Connally's left before striking JFK, causing Connally to swat at it with his hat like it was a bee, as we see in Zapruder? Or was that a bullet from the front?

*

One thing that everyone should notice is that if Errol Morris makes a film or films on the assassination, these works are going to be widely seen and commented on, will be made examples of "conspiracy" investigation, and will be associated with the research community.

I'm sure you all know the cautionary tales to add here, though Morris has heretofore been excellent at his metier of using the camera to deconstruct perceived reality. I wish he'd do that the right way for the assassination, for instance examining the film coverage of Dealey Plaza. But, will the research community end up appearing to be a "quantum leap" between perception and reality?

Fletcher Prouty actually watched it demonstrated for him by Lansdale and an associate. In one demonstration, the dart was fired from an umbrella at a distance of about 300 feet (the length of an American football field). It literally "obliterated" the entire left hind quarter of the goat at which it was aimed because it had been fitted with a high explosive. The flechette runs on solid rocket fuel and, unlike a bullet, the velocity of the dart actually INCREASES the entire journey from source to target, which means it does not lose momentum nor does it's trajectory begin to deteriorate from distance as long as it has fuel. It makes no sound as one would expect from a bullet because it does not depend on the explosion and rapidly expanding resultant gases for energy. The fuel is electronically ignited and the dart makes only a very soft "fizzing" sound as it travels, a sound that one could easily miss due to ambient noise as well as the speed at which the source of the sound is moving away.

For an in depth look at Cutler & Sprague's article see this link:

THE UMBRELLA SYSTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler