Umbrella Man

[Ron Ecker]

Just look at the incredible similarities in hair color, hair lines, and hair style in the photo of Novel and the photo of UM as he's sitting on the curb in post #43.

I agree there is a strong resemblance in that photo, which had me also persuaded for a time that UM was Novel. But that is the only one of the UM photos that strongly resembles Novel, and it's blurred (and what looks like a front cowlick on UM may actually be part of the dark blurry artifacts all over his head). One UM photo strongly resembles Witt, and one photo strongly resembles neither one of them.

This is the same problem that exists with other characters. One photo of DCM resembles Vidal Santiago, and another resembles Bosch. One photo of the oldest tramp strongly resembles an aged Hunt, and the others really don't, any more than they really resemble Chauncey Holt.

It's like the Greek god of photography is playing mind games with us.

I think the lines you drew on UM's and Witt's images were a bit too "loose" and "generous" and "general."

I didn't draw them. The exhibit was prepared by Jerry Organ, who gave me permission to use it in my UM article.

[Thomas Graves]

I think the lines you drew on UM's and Witt's images were a bit too "loose" and "generous" and "general."

I didn't draw them. The exhibit was prepared by Jerry Organ, who gave me permission to use it in my UM article.

____________________________________________

Ron,

I appologize for accusing you of drawing those lines on UM's and Witt's face. I just assumed that you were the culprit.

Knowing what I know now, I guess I should have accused Jerry Organ for drawing them too loosely, generously, etc....

[besides, who needs a "recognition expert" to draw outlines of people's faces to help them "see" the resemblances between the two faces? I for one can discern the resemblances (or lack of such) between two faces without the help of such outlines, thank you very much, J.O. ......]

IMHO, Thomas

____________________________________________

Edited April 25, 2006 by Thomas Graves

[Stan Hayes]

I agree with John. The umbrellaman and his friend were PLAYERS

whose roles are still a mystery.

I have always called Witt the falseumbrellaman.

I have always said it is 95 percent certain that Novel was the umbrellaman.

Jack

Jack, given what's emerged about him since 11/22, Novel looks to be a very likely TUM to me, too. He's rather proficient in handling various sorts of hardware. Assuming a flechette was employed, what bothers me in the umbrella-as-flechette-launcher is its design, at least in the only sketch that I've seen. At what appears to me to be a minimum distance of 25 feet between him and JFK, that rig just doesn't appear to have the necessary sighting mechanism to place a missile of any sort with precision. And precision seems to have been a definite requirement; the base of the throat's a small area. Unless a shot anywhere in the chest/shoulder area would also result in the flechette's complete dissolution, it's a reasonable assumption that the shot went where it was intended to go. The question is, if not from the umbrella, from where was the flechette launched, and with what hardware?

Best

Stan

A quick follow-up on the umbrella itself; I was sufficiently intrigued with the umbrella question that, in my almost-finished sequel to The Rough English Equivalent, I include it in the inventory of weapons that the assassins spirit out of Dallas, hidden in three large golf bags. Wearing golf togs, the men board a Grumman Albatross that's waiting for them a few miles outside of Dallas on the seldom-used seaplane base, Lake Lavon. The idea was to dump the weapons in the Gulf, once the 100-fathom line was behind them enroute to Miami. An unfortunate accident involving the umbrella occurs that results in the death of one of the pilots. For a sneak preview, members are cordially invited to check my website (http://www.stanhayes.com) and for information on the publication of the new book, The Quintessence of Quick.

Best

Stan

[Jack White]

Bothun's photo of the u-man is blurry. However, it is a very close match

with the NOPD mug profile of Novel.

Jack

[Denis Pointing]

The very idea that Gordon Novel is UM completely breaks down all boundaries of common sense. If UM was an integral part of the hit team (and that's a big if) then one thing for certain is that afterwards he would have kept a very low profile. What he 100% would NOT do is get himself introduced to Jim Garrison and then start boasting how he and David Ferrie carried out a burglary together on behalf of the CIA! And that's exactly what Gordon Novel did. C'mon, think about it. Read the link to the article below.

http://www.jfk-online.com/novelpost.html

Edited September 24, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Don Bailey]

I have to agree with Denis, when they push a subject like Novel into your investigation, it will throw a wrench into your studies.

Don

[Denis Pointing]

it never dawned on me that The Cuban and UM were there to distract people's attention while Kennedy got shot and that they sat down, while all the other people ran up the grassy knoll. They were acting "stunned" maybe, but other people were moving. I think if I witnessed the assassination I would get the hell out of there, and not sit so prominently.

Kathy C

Kathy, I'm not sure if anyone has claimed UM was there to distract attention. The most prominent theory is that by opening and closing his umbrella UM was actually giving a signal to the shooters. Some "researchers " also claim the umbrella itself was a weapon. The "ammo" being a flechette. I belive Penn started that one. The point you make about UM sitting down in such a prominent place, rather than getting "the hell out of there" is, of course, an excellent reason for UM NOT being part of the hit team. Also Kathy, no one knows if the guy sitting next to UM was from Cuba or not, why do you assume that? Denis.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Denis Pointing

[Linda Minor]

Mark,

According to his testimony, Witt was working for the Rio Grande National Life Insurance Co. in 1963. It would be interesting to know who else worked there, how long Witt had been there, how long he had lived in Dallas, where did he come from, etc. I also wonder why he located the insurance company at two different addresses, 51 Northview Street at the corner of Beal, and the corner of Elm and Field Streets.

Witt may still be around (he lived at 7209 Embassy Street in 1963 and was still there in 1978), but I wonder how approachable he would be. He did not come forward till subpoened in 1978. In the Fourth Decade, v. 1 no. 5, Gary Mack wrote that a former co-worker of Witt tipped off Penn Jones Jr. after recognizing Witt's picture when the HSCA asked the media for help on identifying UM. Gary wrote that Witt twice "declined to talk" with researchers, but was willing to talk to the HSCA, which thereupon subpeoned him. Witt made it clear in his testimony that he would rather not be there and that the attention had caused concern for him and his family. But it's possible, of course, that after this much time Witt, if he is still living, might be willing to be interviewed.

The resemblance of Witt to UM in a couple of the photos is undeniable. My impression of his testimony is that it is generally credible except for what he claimed to have seen (or rather not seen) and done during the time of the shooting, which conflicts with the photo and film evidence of his actions. Witt may have been unaware of this conflict, due to his purported lack of interest in the assassination in the years afterward. So theoretically Witt could have been telling the truth about being UM, and lying about what he saw and did at the time of the shooting.

Why would he lie? The most plausible explanation IMO would be that Witt would have felt too ashamed to testify that he was taunting JFK with the umbrella, as he had planned, as JFK was being shot to death. Witt found it easier on himself to say that he didn't really do or see anything as JFK was being murdered, because the half-raised open umbrella was blocking his view.

That's simply a conjecture. It would indeed be interesting to know what Witt might say today in light of the photo and film evidence contradicting his testimony almost 30 years ago.

Either the transcription of the HSCA testimony was wrong, or else the witness' memory was bad. The Rio Grande National Life Insurance Co. building was at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elm Street and N. Field, not Beal. The insurance company (Witt's employer in 1963) was owned and operated by the Baxter family, who moved to Dallas "in 1939, [when] the Rio Grande Building in Harlingen was traded for the old Linz Building on Main and Martin streets [1608 Main] in Dallas to become the company's new home office building." They built a new building in Dallas in about 1950 in the 1200 block of Elm; it was torn down for the Renaissance Tower. It would have been about half a mile from Dealey Plaza.

[Paul Brancato]

I am bringing the umbrella man discussion back for one reason - to suggest a symbolic meaning to UM's act. In my view all the focus on the umbrella being an advanced CIA weapon, or on Gordon Novel or a Mossad agent being the real identity of UM, or on the opening of the umbrella being a timing mechanism, misses a possible message to history. The most famous 'umbrella man' of the 20th century was Neville Chamberlain. Perhaps the message is that JFK is an appeaser to the communists, and that's why we are assassinating him. It certainly seems like whoever the plotters were, they all agreed that at best JFK was an appeaser to Krushchev and Castro, and at worst an actual communist. That the perpetrators chose broad daylight to stage their dramatic event suggests that they were doing more than killing a president, they were delivering an unmistakable message. The actions of UM and his probable companion after the shooting are highly suspicious, so I don't believe they were innocent bystanders. The testimony of Mr. Witt, if he was indeed a plant and not the actual UM, is revealing. He claims he opened the umbrella right as JFK passed, and closed it thereafter. If I understand the available evidence (please correct me if I am mistaken) there is no footage of him opening the umbrella. You would think that he would have been asked questions about the timing of that move, and that it would be foolish on Witt's part to invite such questioning without reason. So maybe there exists somewhere not in the public domain actual footage of just that action, in which case his testimony could have been later dismissed if such footage later surfaced. Inotherwords, if he was a plant, such footage probably exists.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Paul Brancato

[Ian Kingsbury]

What Witt explained should be seen in the Ztoon it is not.

Even if the film has been altered(frames removed) you would see part

Of the action of him opening the umbrella, we do not see him even

Looking at the umbrella .and where is he just before the action walking to where he stops?

No we see him where he was the whole time , did he get there early to get a good spot to view from

Has anybody seen him before the shots or DCM?.

[David Williams]

The Rio Grande Building, in Dallas was also the home of 112th Military Inteligence unit in 1963.

Dave

[David Andrews]

The communist appeasement accusation as reflection of nazi appeasement is some problematic symbology, being that the Rockefellers, Brown Bros.-Harriman, and Sullivan and Cromwell profited from German rearmament and conquest. So the umbrella symbology may not be a warning, just a dodge.

If indeed it was symbology and not some signalling of how bad Kennedy was wounded by that point on Elm. Did conspirators expect a man driving into the west at 12:30 PM to see or understand such an umbrella symbol, while he was being shot to death? That's comic-book thinking.

If it is symbology, it's authored by players not at the geopolitical big-picture level (though they might have imagined that they were): Air Force, Joint Chiefs, CIA.

Edited January 9, 2013 by David Andrews

[Paul Brancato]

Sticking with the possible symbology of UM, I am suggesting that they wanted history to view the assassination as retaliation for appeasement. The military industrial complex used the anti-communists such as JBS the way they use the Christian right today. I don't really think that when the JCS argued with JFK about attacking Cuba or the USSR it was for abstract ideological reasons. Maybe some of them were true believers, but history is not made by those types. Capitalism is institutional, and corporate power uses our government to further its aims by building democratic consensus first, using whatever strange bedfellow alliances they have to, and more drastic means only when that fails. But if it was a message to history it could have been left by either the establishment MIC or their more ideological operational apparatus.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Paul Brancato