The Umbrella Man Feature Film

[Andrew Prutsok]

On 11/18/2016 at 7:31 PM, Chris Newton said:

Tommy,

Where is this "underworld of conspiracy theorist sub-culture" that one can descend into? Is there an annual membership required or can anyone get tickets? Is there an elevator or do I have to climb down a ladder (just want to dress appropriately, don't want you looking up my kilt)?

 

I think this is it:

https://www.infowars.com/

[Chris Newton]

10 hours ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

I think this is it:

https://www.infowars.com/

I think that the "main stream" media's failure to address the real likelihood of a conspiracy surrounding the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK has given the conspiracy "nut jobs" like Alex Jones an opening. They are filling a void.

I'm really saddened when I hear other voices in todays "resistance" tout "collusion",  i.e. conspiracy, when it comes to Trump and the Russians from one side of their mouths but continue to deride and insult anyone that advocates for justice in these other assassinations out the other side of their mouths.

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

I think that the "main stream" media's failure to address the real likelihood of a conspiracy surrounding the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK has given the conspiracy "nut jobs" like Alex Jones an opening. They are filling a void.

I'm really saddened when I hear other voices in todays "resistance" tout "collusion",  i.e. conspiracy, when it comes to Trump and the Russians from one side of their mouths but continue to deride and insult anyone that advocates for justice in these other assassinations out the other side of their mouths.

Chris - boy do I echo that. Even if There is something to the collusion story, which I most definitely think there is, the media has so little credibility because they have failed so miserably to cover our own homegrown scandalous history. We have so much research, and ongoing research, so many dedicated patriots refusing to let JFK etc die, and yet we have no one in mainstream media that gives two cents, or is willing to stick their neck out to even cover the document release.

[Joe Bauer]

I would like to see this new film.  

I like the idea of veering into any JFK assassination conspiracy story from a side angle off of a literary or film main story line that is of a more personal everyday life human experience.  

In the least to generate enough interest to spur book and film tickets sales to adequately fund such, but also beyond that to keep interest in this event alive.

Most people are not inclined to buy, get into and stay with books or films whose main story lines are strictly about historical events from decades ago ( even the JFK in Dallas one ) even if some of these events are of monumental importance beyond their general comprehension that they really should be made more aware of ( especially the truths versus non-truths involved ) because of how greatly these events affected these people's older generations then and still themselves now in their current daily lives. 

Every year since the 1960's there are at least one or two A-List films made by major American film production companies that center around the Jewish holocaust of over 70 years ago.  There is a reason for this. To keep that event story constantly refreshed in the minds of future generations. So people don't forget something the survivors feel should never be forgotten or allowed to drift out of mind and sight awareness and contemplation.

It would be great if that kind of money, clout and commitment were made available to keep the JFK event and even the RFK and MLK ones alive in the collective minds of today's and tomorrow's generations.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

I've seen the Josiah Thompson "Umbrella Man" video several times.

I don't know if the version posted here is an abbreviated one from a longer one.

However, in contemplating what I think is Thompson's message that the Umbrella Man and his umbrella act and his position right at the "exact" motorcade route spot and time when JFK's head was blown apart is of no more importance beyond weird coincidence, I sense and see other things in this scene that suggest to me otherwise.

Thompson recounts the Umbrella Man's stated motivation for his umbrella act  ( Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler ) and chuckles that it is so singularly out-there and ridiculous ...  it must be true!

But there are other things going on with the Umbrella Man ( including his shared post shooting closeness to the Dark Complexion man ) that deserve some thought.

Okay, so Umbrella Man's position on Elm Street is at the exact spot where JFK  is getting shot twice. His umbrella is the only one present along the entire motorcade route.  And it isn't enough to just open the black umbrella. The man has to pump this up and down for more effect.

But add on these other suspicious actions.

In the seconds following the slaughter, as everyone around the Umbrella Man and the Dark Complexion Man remaing standing in shock and/or running to and fro ( with half a dozen falling to the ground out of personal safety fear ) The DC man and Umbrella Man get close together and both decide at the same time that the most rational thing for them to do was to sit down on the curb and grass beneath them at the same exact time two feet apart?

Something not "one" of the hundreds of other Dealey Plaza gathered crowd people did.

They stay there for awhile in the midst of all the running chaos. They eventually get up and walk their separate ways.

No one ever approaches them for questioning even though they are as close to the shooting as anyone.

What kind of explanation does Thompson give to these two men's mutually shared and uniquely different actions at this super high energy, emotion and chaotic time?  

Just more of the laughable weird coincidences that happen all around us all the time that have no mysteriously important explanation other than random chance?

 We see what looks like a walkie-talkie in the DC man's back pocket when he does start walking away and while he is sitting, perhaps a larger than normal looking bulge in the lower right back of his coat. In one photo of the DC man, when he first walks away from his curb sitting, we see him clearly moving his left arm and hand directly to his left buttock pocket area.

Now what innocuous reason could anyone ( including Josiah Thompson) come up with to explain that specifically unusual physical action by DC man?

If I did that it would be to scratch an itch.

Now, maybe sitting on the curb caused an itch or perhaps DC man's bottom got wet ( it did rain the night before ) and he was unconsciously reaching down to feel and verify this? Maybe he was checking to see if his wallet was still in his back pocket?  But, even considering these explanations it is still a suspicious action if for any reason other than it's timing.

 

Notice also that the Umbrella Man wore a hat? As soon as JFK was hit and right after, he took off his hat. He placed it at his feet while he sat on the curb. Photos show this clearly AND a later photo after the DC man and the Umbrella man left the scene, the Umbrella Man's hat has been left on the sidewalk next to where the Umbrella Man had been sitting on the curb. He left his hat.

Of course the whole scene was so shocking one could forget a discarded item not directly on their person.

None-the-less it is the closeness of the black man and the Umbrella man ( an odd pairing, especially in a racially conscious place like Dallas ) and their mutually shared and uniquely different actions just before, during and right after JFK was hit within feet of them that begs logical suspicion beyond mere weird coincidences that just happen ... IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Ty Carpenter]

Ian Fleming from Goldfinger- "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action". 

A good rule of thumb if you ask me.

[David Andrews]

20 hours ago, Ty Carpenter said:

Ian Fleming from Goldfinger- "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. The third time it's enemy action". 

A good rule of thumb if you ask me.

Loved that as a  kid - but not paranoid enough for the real world.  Needs action by the second step.

[David Andrews]

On ‎9‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 10:39 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Chris - boy do I echo that. Even if There is something to the collusion story, which I most definitely think there is, the media has so little credibility because they have failed so miserably to cover our own homegrown scandalous history. We have so much research, and ongoing research, so many dedicated patriots refusing to let JFK etc die, and yet we have no one in mainstream media that gives two cents, or is willing to stick their neck out to even cover the document release.

My feeling is that the Mockingbird control strategy has changed from burying dissent and pacifying the suspicious to fomenting suspicion and dissatisfaction for divisive social and political ends, some of them not existing but pending, or eventually desirable to power.

[Michael Crane]

On 9/9/2017 at 12:49 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Just musing here but...

Does anyone else see the Dealey Plaza "Umbrella Man" and the tall "fist thrusting" black man sitting on the Elm street curb seconds after JFK's head is blown apart, so close together they could be holding hands ... as maybe a little suspicious? 

I can understand men jumping down next to or even on their wives and children who were that close to something that bloody violent ( and gun shot LOUD) , but in almost segregated Dallas in 1963, and men to boot, you'd think that the normal instincts of two individual men ( one white - one black ) who supposedly didn't know each other would not be to cozy up as close as a cuddly couple in a movie theater especially when there is so much open room all around them?

Mind if I hold your hand friend?

Just makes me wonder if these cozy mind set two were connected in some other way besides simple coincidental location choice 2 to 3 feet from each other before and during JFK's limo drive by.

Also, it does appear that in closer up photos of the tall black man you do see something larger than a thick wallet near or in his back pocket area and in another photo of him still seated a somewhat large bulge  ( larger and more shape defined than a simple fold of coat fabric ) underneath the back right side of his short waist length coat. 

What is the general take here on the black man back pocket walkie-talkie story?

 

Forum member Tosh Plumlee said that the dark complected man you`re talking about,flew out of Redbird airport with him after the assassination.He has also mentioned how his abort teams walkie talkies were not operating correctly that day.

Edited September 15, 2017 by Michael Crane

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

My feeling is that the Mockingbird control strategy has changed from burying dissent and pacifying the suspicious to fomenting suspicion and dissatisfaction for divisive social and political ends, some of them not existing but pending, or eventually desirable to power.

Exactly

[Paul Brancato]

Joe - Definitely suspicious behavior. I ascribe to the umbrella being symbolic, but not because some schnook thought JFK was like Neville Chamberlain, but because the conspirators themselves wanted to make that point. 

[Brian Schmidt]

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Joe - Definitely suspicious behavior. I ascribe to the umbrella being symbolic, but not because some schnook thought JFK was like Neville Chamberlain, but because the conspirators themselves wanted to make that point. 

Paul, 

That's been my long standing belief as well. I'm agnostic as to whether the Umbrella Man was really Louie Steven Witt. I've done a bit research on him. He just died a few years back. I've interviewed some of his coworkers and his niece. His niece said he was a strange guy who didn't talk much. He worked for the Rio Grande Insurance Company, which had connections to Carlos Marcello (which is actually referenced in the movie), at the time of assassination. I checked his criminal record but it was clean. After that, he was a warehouse manager. I found a guy who worked for him but he said he never mentioned the Kennedy assassination or that he was there at all. The guy didn't find out he was the Umbrella Man until years later during the HSCA. Also, it turns out Witt was a union representative--so much for being such a right-winger like he said during his testimony (although to be fair, back in the day before the hyper polarization, some conservatives were union supporters).

[David Andrews]

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Exactly

And, you know, when I say that part about "pending" and "eventual" agendas out loud (as it were), the idea of an Oswald brought back as an all-purpose patsy and/or "assassin" seems even less strange to me than it already does.  There's always a long game factored into power's planning.  But we digress....

Edited September 16, 2017 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

The Chamberlain scenario requires prior knowledge.  To make a political statement during the assassination of the president.  Then whoever really set up and managed the whole thing covers it all up for 50 + years?  The assassination itself was a statement, I think, to the USA as a whole and future Presidents in particular.

I've wondered before if Umbrella Man might have been a planned distraction to draw attention away from the limo as shots were fired.

Given their actions at the time, though the "theory" has been well assaulted, radio in the pocket/antenna man and umbrella man were in cahoots still seems the most logical to me.  As eyes on the prize forward observers they called for/ signaled that the throat, back, and likely a missed (hit Connally?) shots had not killed JFK and a second round was necessary.  Radioman told the second round of shooters spotters go/fire, umbrella man physically signaled confirmation of such to both the spotters and shooters by pumping the umbrella.  In the astonishment of the aftermath they both just sat there a few seconds then calmly got up and walked off in opposite directions.  Never to be heard from again, investigated by the FBI, DPD or Warren Omission.  Unless you believe Witt.

3 hours ago, Brian Schmidt said:

Paul, 

That's been my long standing belief as well. I'm agnostic as to whether the Umbrella Man was really Louie Steven Witt. I've done a bit research on him. He just died a few years back. I've interviewed some of his coworkers and his niece. His niece said he was a strange guy who didn't talk much. He worked for the Rio Grande Insurance Company, which had connections to Carlos Marcello (which is actually referenced in the movie), at the time of assassination. I checked his criminal record but it was clean. After that, he was a warehouse manager. I found a guy who worked for him but he said he never mentioned the Kennedy assassination or that he was there at all. The guy didn't find out he was the Umbrella Man until years later during the HSCA. Also, it turns out Witt was a union representative--so much for being such a right-winger like he said during his testimony (although to be fair, back in the day before the hyper polarization, some conservatives were union supporters).

Brian, can you refresh my memory?  I've read of Witt before but can't remember, why was such an unassuming guy pumping an open umbrella on a clear day as JFK got shot?  

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 9/13/2017 at 10:05 PM, Chris Newton said:

I think that the "main stream" media's failure to address the real likelihood of a conspiracy surrounding the assassinations of JFK, MLK and RFK has given the conspiracy "nut jobs" like Alex Jones an opening. They are filling a void.

I'm really saddened when I hear other voices in todays "resistance" tout "collusion",  i.e. conspiracy, when it comes to Trump and the Russians from one side of their mouths but continue to deride and insult anyone that advocates for justice in these other assassinations out the other side of their mouths.

Agreed Chris, But why would the people who are exposing Trumps conflicts of interest and collusion have to submit to any sort of litmus test about the major assassinations of the 60's? The reason for the contradictions really have to more to do with age, they are generations apart. For the journalists and media reporters and commentators from the 60's. The Kennedy Assassination produced a major schism, if they were skeptics of say  the  Warren Report, .they in effect sublimated any doubt in choice of their career directions. They have to live with that.

There is some overlap, but the newer generation of would be journalists venerate the official version because their journalist heroes did, and they haven't been given real reason to research it. It's a dead issue to the MSM. 

It certainly has had a corrosive effect on our society. While I see the need to encourage future generations to continue the research into the JFK assassination. There's a great number of new advocates who are using the concept of conspiracies to rationalize inactivity, hopelessness, and a sense of futility, "Why even try, it's all rigged anyway".  These people only tend to dilute and discredit the conspiracy  to those who would someday be in a position to make real inroads in exposing what happened.

But this dilution of credibility is precisely why Fox News and people on this forum who use the phrase "Deep State" as it applies to the current day, should be  mindful and be able to define the terms  they're using. I personally have seen no one define their terms on that.  What does it mean?

Edited September 16, 2017 by Kirk Gallaway