Paul Trejo Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article? And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles. Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points: (1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk (2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object. Regards, --Paul Trejo Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella. Robert, since you also asked for an article, here's an article on the Umbrella Weapon by well-known author and consultant, Richard E. Sprague, who served Richard A. Sprague on the HSCA. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html Granted, there is also no mention in this article about how and where a scope could be mounted on an Umbrella gun, yet this article is interesting because of its source, so close to the HSCA, and his sources, i.e. various Directors of the CIA. I'll keep searching for that article that posits where a scope could be mounted on this particular type of dart-gun. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Paul, do you think a solid fuel rocket might have a tendency to leave a telltale trail of smoke in its wake that might be spotted on film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Paul, do you think a solid fuel rocket might have a tendency to leave a telltale trail of smoke in its wake that might be spotted on film? Robert, every film I have ever seen of launching of a solid fuel rocket always shows a trail of smoke. Why do you ask? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film? "The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison." "It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film? "The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison." "It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds." Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited August 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article? And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles. Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points: (1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk (2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object. Regards, --Paul Trejo "One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object." /** wrong. as a writer, i interchange words for the same object more often than not, and on purpose, just as many people do. earlier today i wrote this: The crux of the entire mystery - and make no mistake, it IS a mystery, as no one has ever been brought to trial and convicted for this crime - is whether the organization, execution and covering up of the murder was performed by a single person or as a conspiracy of persons. i refer to the same incident with three different terms (mystery, crime and murder), for a reason: repetition is tedious. I also use the same term twice (mystery), in context, for emphasis. or something. it's about context. but no one "justly expected a third type of" incident. unless reading just isn't their specialty... the use of the word missile implies neither the bullet or an alternate object without the context to consider. Edited August 4, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film? "The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison." "It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds." Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour. Edited August 5, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film? "The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison." "It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds." Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour. Robert - THANK YOU. I am amazed at the expertise that is revealed by members of the JFK Assassination Research Community who, having read "something" about "something", sometimes know an awful lot about an awful lot, though having never actually experienced said "something". i've shot guns. I've seen them produce smoke. there is literature that says the powder is smokeless, but i know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article? And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles. Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points: (1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk (2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object. Regards, --Paul Trejo Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella. Robert, are you suggesting that Paul skirted the question about where a scope might be practically mounted to an umbrella? (i can't believe I'm hearing myself ask that question. If my family read this, they'd be calling the guys in white coats on the double. "hey Sharon, do you have any idea how i can clamp a transaxle to this toaster oven?") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapor. Very interesting, Robert, and instructive. Many thanks. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 Dumb question, Paul but, just where on an umbrella would you mount a scope? If you read about this umbrella gun, why not post a link to the article? And Glenn is correct; bullets are quite often referred to as missiles. Well, Robert, here are two responses to your two points: (1) Here is a fairly clear explanation about the umbrella gun on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcdMlNFL9Bk (2) One would still expect consistency, Robert, i.e. if the same document refers to bullets as "bullets" and fragments as "fragments" then when that document also adds "missiles" one may justly expect a third type of object. Regards, --Paul Trejo Nice video but, no mention of how and where a scope was mounted on the umbrella. Robert, are you suggesting that Paul skirted the question about where a scope might be practically mounted to an umbrella? (i can't believe I'm hearing myself ask that question. If my family read this, they'd be calling the guys in white coats on the double. "hey Sharon, do you have any idea how i can clamp a transaxle to this toaster oven?") Having mounted a few scopes on rifles, I would be very interested in knowing how one mounts a scope on an umbrella. Mounting a transaxle on a toaster oven is fairly straight forward, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Having mounted a few scopes on rifles, I would be very interested in knowing how one mounts a scope on an umbrella. Mounting a transaxle on a toaster oven is fairly straight forward, though. Robert, I can't find that article I was thinking of -- an opinion piece, anyway. Yet if one can construct a dart-gun inside a folding umbrella, then installing a telescopic lens (with mirrors, most likely) is not a scientifically impossible task. Otherwise, one would have to agree that aiming an 'umbrella dart-gun' at a moving target would be an impossible task. Yet as the article-link that I did post here noted -- the 'umbrella dart-gun' was really a CIA invention back in the early 1960's. James Bond and all that. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Having mounted a few scopes on rifles, I would be very interested in knowing how one mounts a scope on an umbrella. Mounting a transaxle on a toaster oven is fairly straight forward, though. Robert, I can't find that article I was thinking of -- an opinion piece, anyway. Yet if one can construct a dart-gun inside a folding umbrella, then installing a telescopic lens (with mirrors, most likely) is not a scientifically impossible task. Otherwise, one would have to agree that aiming an 'umbrella dart-gun' at a moving target would be an impossible task. Yet as the article-link that I did post here noted -- the 'umbrella dart-gun' was really a CIA invention back in the early 1960's. James Bond and all that. Regards, --Paul Trejo i cannot believe you just wrote that with a straight face (assuming you did). with mirrors? really? this is what I mean about the tendencies to further complicate the investigation of an already complex JFK Assassination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 the rison that killed the Russian spy a few years ago was said to have been administered by the tip of an umbrella. no problem. but its administration didn't require accuracy and distance and a scope. come to think of it - if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted August 5, 2015 Author Share Posted August 5, 2015 (edited) Think it remotely possible the flechette dart fired from the umbrella might have left a trail of smoke that would have been quite visible on the Zapruder film? "The system is based on launching devices of various types, used to launch a self-propelled, rocket-like dart, or flechette. The flechette can carry either a paralyzing or fatal poison." "It is propelled to its target by a solid-state fuel, ignited electronically at the launcher. It strikes its target, animal or human, dissolves completely in the body leaving no observable trace, and totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds." Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo It is a popular misconception that modern rifle cartridges loaded with smokeless powder do not smoke. While these cartridges do not make the great clouds of smoke that black powder rifle cartridges did, there are still combustion byproducts from smokeless gunpowder, much of them in the form of water vapour, that will, under the right atmospheric conditions, produce a cloud of what appears to be smoke. Most of this is condensing water vapour. Robert - THANK YOU. I am amazed at the expertise that is revealed by members of the JFK Assassination Research Community who, having read "something" about "something", sometimes know an awful lot about an awful lot, though having never actually experienced said "something". i've shot guns. I've seen them produce smoke. there is literature that says the powder is smokeless, but i know better. This gets a little more interesting. There are many who believe the fatal head shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll by a fellow named James Files. Reputedly, the weapon he used was a Remington Fireball XP-100, chambered to shoot a .221 calibre rifle bullet. (in 1963, the year this weapon was introduced by Remington, it was only available in .221 calibre. The original prototypes were designed around the popular .222 cartridge, but this cartridge produced excessive noise and muzzle flash. The casing was shortened to reduce the powder volume to an amount more suited to the short barrel, and re-introduced as the .221) For those of you not familiar with this unusual weapon, I will describe it for you. Unlike the majority of handguns loaded with much shorter cartridges and propelling bullets at much lower velocities, this handgun utilizes a bolt action normally found on a rifle, and propels a bullet at velocities approaching and exceeding 3000 feet per second. It is, essentially, a rifle sawed off to a 10-14" barrel and made into a handgun. Believe it or not, this weapon has actually been chambered for the .308 Winchester .35 Remington and .350 Remington Magnum cartridges, and the claim is made it has an effective range of 200-300 metres. While reducing the volume of gunpowder in the cartridge helped to reduce excessive muzzle flash, it by no means eliminated it. Simply put, a 10" barrel is just to short to allow all of the gunpowder from a rifle cartridge to burn up before leaving the barrel, and the excessive flash seen is from excess powder burning outside of the barrel. Would this explain the flash seen by Lee Bowers, and the smoke seen by those atop the Triple Underpass? Edited August 5, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now