Friday, December 8, 2023

Let's consider what Dan Rather said on November 25, 1963 after viewing the original Zapruder film. 

He said that you can see the limo making a left turn from Houston Street onto Elm. Well, you know very well that we don't see that in Zapruder film today So, they cut that out.

Then, he said that 35 yards from the intersection, you can see the President lurch forward from being hit with the first shot. He demonstrated. 

You know that we don't see that in the Zapruder film. 

Think about how short 35 yards is. So, imagine a football field and the distance from the 50 yard line to the end zone. It's about 2/3 of that distance. 

Well, he could not have been talking about the shot when JFK was behind the freeway sign because that freeway sign was a lot farther than 35 yards from the intersection. It had to be at least 60 yards.

So, forget about the Single Bullet Theory. JFK was first shot in the back about 35 yards from the intersection. Then, he was shot in the throat when he was behind the Stemmons freeway sign in relation to Zapruder. This diagram shows the sequence of the shots that struck him.

So now, the question is: if he was stuck shallowly in the back, at a harmless spot in his back, which did no significant physical damage, and no mental damage whatsoever, why didn't he respond? Why didn't he take action; evasive, defensive action? Why didn't he get down and get Jackie to get down? Why didn't he tell the driver to floor it? Why is it that he just sat there and did absolutely nothing? 

The answer is: he must have been incapacitated, and I mean mentally. He wasn't incapacitated physically. It was like nothing more than a scratch physically. But very rapidly, the toxic payload of that shot start circulating in his system, shutting down his cognitive ability, and turning him into a zombie; a spastic, immobile zombie.  

That really is what happened to him. So, stop fighting it. There is no other theory that explains the facts of the case and what we see of him in the Zapruder film than this. It has to be this. 


Monday, December 4, 2023

The Timing of the Back Shot and the Throat Shot 

Three shots struck the President. The third one is the one that killed him. That was the fatal head shot, which struck him as he was passing Zapruder at 313. But, don't assume the red cloud was real.

The first two shots were fairly minor. The back shot was little more than a scratch.  It was an ice bullet whose purpose was to deliver the nerve agent. The purpose of the throat shot was to create a hole in his neck. It was a flechette, but not a  frozen one, and I don't know that it contained any drug. However, the throat shot was more serious because of its location. He would have needed surgery for it, which he would not have needed for the back shot. But, he would have been back to work full-time in a few weeks, at the most, and he would have been working part-time much sooner than that.  

The back shot, which had the poison, came first, and that occurred at frame 189 in the Zapruder film. 

So, he was fine and waving in 189, and then in 190, it's more blurry and his hand is covering his face. So, the ice bullet hit him between the two. And that face-covering continued until he disappeared behind the freeway sign. 

Of course, JFK did NOT do that. He did not cover his face. His face must have looked stricken and alarmed, since he was shot, and since, officially, he wasn't shot yet, they had to cover that up. So, they put his hand over his face. It's art.

No witness reported that JFK covered his face with his hand. And Jackie turned and started looking at him shortly after that, and she never said he covered his face. On the contrary, she said he had a "quizzical" look on his face.  

So, Z-189 is when JFK was shot in the back with the ice bullet that was laced with a nerve toxin. The shot was taken from the Dal-Tex building. Then, he rode down the steepest part of the hill that way, as the poison seeped into him. 

Z-225 is when JFK emerges from behind the freeway sign reacting to having been shot in the throat. He was in a panic due to his airway being blocked. 

So, raised his right hand to his mouth and coughed, and with his left hand he yanked on his tie. But, he performed this motion in a very uncoordinated way. He lifted his elbows up, which was unnecessary. He also severely hunched his shoulders. This was dyskinesia, the result of the nerve agent, where he was losing control of his muscles and going into a spastic state. 

Kennedy was not "paralyzed," although many have used that term. Paralysis refers to the complete denervation of a muscle, where it can't get any signals from its nerve to contract. That was not going on with Kennedy. The fact is that muscles also depend on nerves to tell them to STOP contracting, and that's what the nerve agent interfered with: the cessation of contraction. In Z-232 (above) JFK was reacting to the obstruction in his breathing that was caused by the throat shot. And he was contracting his own muscles. He did lift his hands to his mouth and throat. If his muscles were paralyzed, he would not have been able to do that. It was not a Thorburn reaction; it was a voluntary reaction. But, it was executed in a dysfunctional and uncoordinated way. Normally, when you want to lift your hands to your mouth and throat, you do a rotary motion with your elbows, so that just your hands go up. He didn't need to lift his elbows up like that. You can also see the extreme contraction of his posterior muscles, where he is hunching his shoulders severely. That wasn't necessary or helpful either. It's all very excessive. It is dyskinesia. He wasn't paralyzed. He was the opposite of paralyzed; he was spastic. But, what he was trying to do was clear his airway, either of the projectile or a bolus of blood. And he apparently succeeded because after that, his breathing was no longer a problem. 

So, Kennedy was shot in the back high on the hill at Z-189. It was right before the Croft photo was taken. Kennedy had barely passed the Obelisk when he was shot in the back. 

Then, he rode down the hill that way, affected only by the back shot, but being overwhelmed by it, which is why he didn't wave in Croft, nor in Betzner, nor in Willis. And then, after that, he was shot in the throat. What was the Z frame that corresponded to the throat shot? We can only guess, but his reaction was underway in 225, so it could not have been more than a few frames before that. So, I'll say 222. 

Subtracting 189 from 222 would suggest around 2 seconds between the back shot, which came first, and the throat shot. However, a huge swath of the Z-film was cut out. If you ask yourself what frames of the Z-film correspond to Croft, Betzner, and Willis, don't bother. They were cut out. The red swath represents the part that was removed.

The story of the Z-film became that Kennedy rode down the hill untouched until he reached the freeway sign, and then one shot hit him which traversed him from back to front. They installed the phony freeway sign in the Zapruder film to tell that story. But, that is not what happened. He was hit in the back first and then he rode down the hill, disassociating from what was going on, and drawing attention from Jackie, who stopped working her side of the street, instead puzzling over him and his "quizzical" look. And then he was shot in the throat behind the sign at Z-222.

So, what was the real span of time between Shot 1 and Shot 2? I can only guess, but it could have been 10 seconds. You just can't go by what you see in the Zapruder film. It was severely altered and compressed, and more so than researchers have ever imagined. And they eliminated the slowing down and near-stopping of the limo, which also reduced the time between shots, profoundly. And that's why you can't go by the timing of anything in the Zapruder film.  

A Facebook exchange


Brian Corbett

Ralph Cinque not even the Same shirt anyone can see that get real
  • Like
  • Reply
  • Share
Ralph Cinque
Brian Corbett All right, I'll get real specific 'cause of your dull mind. Yes, the light/dark contrast of Doorman's shirt conflicts with Oswald's. But, you have to be smart about it. It's an extreme blow-up. The whole vast Altgens photo was only 2 inches by 3 inches. So, imagine how small Doorman was in it. So, he is a huge blowup, and that causes distortion. Plus, Oswald was outside at the time under sunny conditions, which caused light reflection. So, that too was part of it: light reflection. Then, the third consideration is that the Altgens photo is the most altered photo in the history of photography, and we know they were trying to represent him as Lovelady. So, some of that contrast may be intentional shit that "they" did. But, when you look at the form, lay, and fit of the shirt, and the collar, it is the same fucking shirt. And the same goes for the t-shirt. There is so much that does match between them that it goes way past the threshold of confirmation that it's the same guy wearing the same clothes. You have to admit that their clothes do seem to be alike, and it's a big world of clothes out there. The idea that Oswald and Lovelady just happened to dress that much alike is ridiculous and preposterous. Plus, there are other image comparisons besides this one, and collectively they make it a lock that Oswald was Doorman. Same man/same clothes. And now, I'm going to make you famous.

Sunday, December 3, 2023

I have been reviewing the testimony of James Altgens. He said he stepped into the street to take his famous photo, the Altgens6 photo, and it was at the time of the first shot. "The shot was just a fraction of a second ahead of my picture." That's a quote. That's what he said.

Again, he was referring to the very first shot, which he said sounded like a firecracker. 

So, what was the first shot? 

I don't claim to be an expert on the shots, but I can tell you what the first shot was. It was the shot that hit Kennedy in the back, delivering the nerve agent. It was taken high on the hill, right before the Croft photo was taken.  

I realize it is widely accepted that the first shot was the shot that missed, and that it went on to strike the curb and then to graze James Tague.  But, if you read his testimony, he said that he thought it was either the 2nd or the 3rd shot that affected him, and definitely not the first. 

You see in this diagram, the 3 shots that hit JFK. #1 was the back shot which was a split-second before the Croft photo. #2 was the throat shot across from the pergola. And #3, the fatal head shot, which was about even with Zapruder. The area in red indicates the part of the Z-film that was disappeared. It was the part when JFK was riding down the hill having been only struck in the back. As you know, the story of the Zapruder film is that Kennedy was smiling and waving until he disappeared behind the freeway sign, and then he was shot, for the first time, behind the sign. So, the story became that the back shot and the throat shot were the same shot, which occurred behind the sign and out of view to us. It is a lie.

The plat places Altgens on the grass or curb, but he definitely stepped out into the street. So, Officialdom has it that he took his famous photo when JFK was at point 2 in the diagram. Look for the number 2. But remember: he has the limo coming down the center of the street, and then Hargis and Martin were on their motorcycles on Altgens' side. How much space could there have been between Martin and the curb? Not much. 

So, look at that #2 again in the diagram. Do you really think that Altgens would have stepped out into the street to take his picture with the limo and Hargis and Martin that close to him? I say no way. I say that the limo and the motorcycle escorts had to be much higher on the hill for Altgens to have the nerve to go into the street. You think Altgens would risk obstructing the motorcade of the President of the United States? He wasn't that kind of guy. It's very believable that he would get into the street when the limo was at point #1 but not point #2. 

Point #1 was when the first shot occurred, and he said he took the famous Altgens6 photo right after the first shot, meaning a tiny fraction of a second after it.  

Therefore, the Altgens6 photo should show Kennedy reacting to being shot in the back. Instead, it shows him reacting to being shot in the throat. 

My analysis is correct; it's the imagery that is bogus. What we are seeing there of JFK and Jackie is bogus. And probably Connally too. Notice that we don't see Nellie at all. Why is that? There is no excuse for it. As we look at JFK, we see that his fist is too big. We see that his knuckles are too small. It looks more like a horse's hoof than a hand. We see that his right hand is shriveled. And we see that Jackie's hands are straddling his long arm that goes on interminably. It never ends. Look where his left shoulder is. You can see it. So, how can that be his arm that she is holding?  It is bogus imagery. They replaced what was there with that crude art. But, why did they do it? 

They did it because the back shot, which got captured, was the shot that didn't count. Officially, it never happened. So, they had to get rid of it. So, they made it that the limo was much farther down the hill. The back shot and the throat shot were merged into one, and that was the plan all along. 

Here is the whole Altgens photo, which you rarely see.

The guy clapping his hands on the right is supposed to be Charles Brehm, but he was much farther down the hill. He wasn't way up there. 

You see the white VP Secret Service car with the door open. It's not far from the Dal Tex building. In front of it is Johnson's car. Then, there's a space because Johnson wanted to keep his distance, knowing what was coming. But, you couldn't get more than one car in there. And then the Queen Mary, and then the limo. So, figure 5 car lengths plus the normal space in-between. And that's how far the limo had progressed down Elm. It certainly hadn't reached the freeway sign. And therefore, the throat shot, which is depicted in the photo, did not happen yet.

Look at the back seat of the limo again.

 They say that corresponds to Z-255. If that were true, then it would be about 3 seconds before the fatal head shot. But that's impossible when the limo is still next to the TSBD.
Look at the upper left. That is the TSBD. They're still up by it. So, how could this be 3 seconds before the fatal head shot? It couldn't.

This photo below was taken on November 27, but a man was standing on Zapruder's pedestal. Let's assume that the throat shot occurred when JFK was behind the freeway sign in relation to Zapruder.

So, if JFK was shot in the throat there, it took time for his and Jackie's responses to ensue. So, how could they be reacting to it here?

The Altgens photo surely came before the other image, extrapolating to November 22. And that's why I say that he was not yet shot in the throat in the Altgens photo. So, this imagery of them is fake. 

 They left out Nellie and the driver because they wanted you to have an unobstructed view of Jackie's signature white gloves. 

 Why is Connally's head so big? Did he have a big head compared to JFK? See for yourself. 

Why is the face of Kellerman completely in shadow?

I suspect that Kellerman's expression didn't match what was going on since it hadn't happened yet. 

It shows how arrogant the plotters were. They had a photo in which Oswald was standing the doorway, and JFK was reacting to a shot that had to forever be kept secret. So, what should they have done? They should have destroyed the photo. Nobody would have complained. The only one who knew about it was Altgens, and they just had to tell him that, for national security reasons, the photo had to be destroyed. He would have bought it. He was a team player, and it wasn't going to affect his pay. 

But no, they saw the Secret Service agents turned and facing the TSBD, and they thought it was gold. 

So, you've got all these agents looking at the doorway, and probably at Oswald. The Fedora Man on the left was probably James Bookhout. The man in the back of the Secret Service car with the round head was Glen Bennett. But, he was sitting on the other side of the car; in back but not on the driver's side. Hickey was sitting on that side. So, that's another tampering they did. I suspect it was because Hickey's expression didn't fit the contrived scene either.   

But, they were thinking about the caption for the photo, which was going to be that the President was struck, and Secret Service agents were looking for the source of the shots. If that were true, wouldn't they be looking up? The shots didn't come from the doorway, did they? 

The point is that they could use this photo to claim that the TSBD was the source of the shots, and that's why they didn't destroy it. But, I have to think that, had they known what was going to happen, that in 2024, people would still be talking about Oswald in the doorway, they surely would have destroyed it.   



Saturday, December 2, 2023

This concerns Umbrella Man and the happenstance about his presence in the Kill Zone, as well as the happenstance about Louie Steven Witt testifying to the HSCA. 

But first, I need to inform you that have doubts about the authenticity of some of the post-assassination photos because some of them look staged to me. Take this one:

So the Newmans are still on the ground. Seems odd when others were walking around. Still afraid of being shot, were they? And clustered around them there were 4 photographers, all in suits? Seems a bit much. The one on the left closest to the Newmans looks like James Altgens, but was he there then? I thought he rushed off to the Dallas Morning News to get his film developed, so that Altgens6 could hit the wires at 1:00. On the left is a motorcycle cop, and it doesn't look like he's moving. There isn't the slightest sense that that front wheel is turning. It looks like he's just sitting there posing. Then on the right, there's Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man sitting. And behind them is the Stemmons Freeway sign, but it looks weird. It seems to be leaning forward. Notice that the street-light looks perfectly vertical, but in comparison to it, the freeway sign seems to be tilted forward. And notice that it looks much wider at the base and narrower at the top. And it appears to be too small. Compare it to this:

Now, let's add the other one:

Are you buying it that those two signs are the same sign? I'm not, and that's because I took high school Geometry, and they're not even the same shape. The one on the left is practically square, that is, it's about as wide as it is tall. The one on the right is clearly very oblong. So, they can't possibly be the same sign. 

So, what is going on with this photo?

I suspect it was staged, some time afterwards. But why? For what purpose? I suspect it was to create a false image of Umbrella Man. 

In all the other images, Umbrella Man wore his umbrella and a hat. This is the only image showing his face. The HSCA claimed to use "enhanced photographic techniques" to come up with this:

Actually, it's not the exact same image. In the image I showed you, he wasn't looking at the camera. So, where did this image come from, and why can't I find it online? And I mean the whole image.  

It definitely was similar to the other image, meaning, a wide angle shot, as we say in the film industry, which means this had to be an extreme blow-up. And we know what happens when you blow images up. Robert Blakey, the head of the HSCA, himself, admitted that the Umbrella Man was very tiny in the image and "unrecognizable." His words. And that's when he claimed that they used "advanced photographic techniques" to blow him up clearly enough to be identified. 

But, you've got to remember that detail is either present in an image or it isn't. So, when an unrecognizable image is blown up to one that is recognizable, data has to be added. They don't bring data out; they put data in.  This was the 1970s, and I don't know how far along digital photographic enhancements were. They definitely didn't have Photoshop. 

But, Blakey claimed that, somehow, the Committee came up with that close-up of UM's face. Then, he claimed that the Committee released the image to the press asking people to come forward if they could recognize the man. And supposedly, someone did, although they didn't say who that person was. And that, supposedly, is how they found Louie Steven Witt. 

So, he didn't come to them; they went to him. That's the story. But, are you buying it? It's the same story they told about Babushka Lady, that the Dallas Police ran ads asking people to identify her, but no one did. 

But, since it started with a suspicious image that contains a phony freeway sign, I smell a rat. It's all too convenient for me. 

Below, on the left is a third image of Umbrella Man's face, and on the right is Louie Witt. Yeah, I see the resemblance, but it's way to good. Fifteen years had passed. And his hair was the exact same length and same style?  If I see photos of myself that are fifteen months apart, my hair looks quite different. Plus, no balding and no receding in 15 years?  It's possible, but is it likely?  

So, let's go through Witt's testimony. He said that he was working at the Rio Grande Insurance company, and that, as he often did, he went out for a walk at lunch that day. But wait. Continuing, he said that he brought his umbrella to heckle the President, but that means he wasn't going out for a walk; he was going out to heckle the President. It was one or the other. You can't conflate those two things.  

So then, to smooth it out, he said that at a coffee break earlier, someone said that "the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family." Are you buying that? I'm not. I don't believe for one second that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. I don't think the Kennedys gave any more thought to umbrellas than any other family.  

So, he left work, at lunch time, to go out to heckle the President, but he said he didn't know the motorcade route. He had heard about the motorcade, but he didn't know the route. Yet, we're supposed to believe, without a shred of evidence, that Lee Harvey Oswald knew the route.  

So, he got to Main Street, but it was very crowded, and not wanting to draw attention to himself, he decided that he would rather heckle the President in a less crowded spot. So, he walked down Main to Houston, and then north on Houston to Elm, and then left on Elm. And then, he walked down Elm to the Grassy Knoll area precisely because it was unpopulated. 

Then, he made an incredible statement. He said that he didn't know that the motorcade had arrived until the limo was coming down Elm Street and approaching him. But, he knew it would be coming down Main and then turning right on Houston and then left on Elm BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE DID, HIMSELF. So, how could he not be focused on that? He was standing there waiting, so wouldn't he have spotted the motorcade as soon as it reached Main and Houston? And what about the the lead motorcycles and the lead cars Didn't he see them? So, you see, his story wasn't very credible. But, of course the HSCA guys didn't call him on it. They were out to affirm what he was saying. 

But, once he saw that the President was coming, he said he started fiddling with the umbrella, trying to get it open. as he walked closer to the street, so that he could heckle the President. And he said that he only knew that umbrellas were a sore spot with the Kennedys and that it had something to do with what the father did in England. He never mentioned Neville Chamberlain, and it seemed that he didn't know anything him. However, Chamberlain was the one who carried an umbrella, not Joseph Kennedy.  

So, we are supposed to believe that all he knew was that umbrellas were a sore spot with the Kennedys and that he was going to heckle the President by brandishing one. Are you buying that?

Then, he said that while still on the grass, he was walking towards the street, when he heard the sounds that he "eventually" found out were gun shots. He had no thought that they were shots at the time. Then, as he continued to move forward, he finally got the umbrella up in the air, to where he could see again. That was after the shots. But, here is the Willis photo which was taken right before the throat shot. You know that it is my contention that Kennedy was hit in the back high on the hill long before the throat shot, but we'll put that aside for now.
So, that was taken by Congressman Phil Willis a fraction of a second before the throat shot, which is the shot that Witt was referring to. Doesn't it look like Umbrella Man was settled in with the umbrella above his head and not in motion? However, I agree with Karen Cleft that the photo is fake, that Umbrella Man really was on the move at that time, preparing to fire the throat shot at Kennedy. 

So, Witt claimed that because there were several seconds in which the umbrella was being opened in front of his face, that he didn't see the shooting at all.  And by the time his visual field was restored, Clint Hill was making his move to the limo, etc. Then, he said he sat down at the curb at the edge of the grass. He denied knowing Dark Complected Man, but, I find that strange. Why would they sit so close together if they didn't know each other? 

That is not what strangers do, especially when there was a lot of space, as there was. Strangers keep their distance. They don't snug up to someone they don't know.  It's considered intrusive to do so. Then he identified this guy as himself in the picture with the phony sign.

 Then, he said that he sat there for several minutes and then got up and walked back to work. Then, it was at work that he found out that the President had been shot. So, he experienced the whole thing without knowing Kennedy had been shot. Are you buying that? It is totally non-credible. He even said that while sitting there he heard two people say that the President had been shot. Here's what he said. Read it yourself:

 So, he heard two people talking about killing, and yet, he claimed not to know that the President had been shot until he returned to work? Unbelievable. 

After that, he denied that he was signaler in the assassination, and he denied that his umbrella was a weapon. He was asked if he brought the umbrella to work that morning, or if it was already there, and he said he couldn't remember. 

Then, it went back to his purpose in leaving work: was it to take a walk or to heckle the President, and he insisted it was both. He claimed to take the umbrella along just to heckle the President, even though he didn't know the motorcade route- just in case he ran into it. Then, he claimed to hear at coffee breaks that some members of the Kennedy family were once heckled at an airport in Arizona by people with umbrellas. I did a search about that and found nothing. And again, it makes no sense whatsoever that Kennedys would see umbrellas and connect it to their father. Really, it's just bull shit. 

There were multiple questioners who repeated the questions, so he had to tell his story over and over. So, when Mr. Fauntroy was questioning him, Witt said again that he didn't realize the motorcade had arrived until the limo was coming down Elm Street. So, he said that he got up from sitting and started walking towards the street. But, that would mean he was sitting in the grass. There was no place else to sit. Look at it:

This was later, but you can see what was there. That curb between the sidewalk and the grass was the only place to sit. So, how could he be sitting and then move across the grass to get to the street? It would mean that he was sitting in the grass, and I don't believe fucking it. Do you?

Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we venture to deceive.

So then, he repeated the story of missing the action because he had the umbrella opening up in front of him, blocking his view, and by the time his vision was restored, Clint Hill was climbing aboard the limo. Then, he claimed that Dark Complected Man said repeatedly, "They done shot them folks." Then the female behind him said, "They have shot those people. They shot those people." This was while he was sitting there, but notice in the image above that there was no woman behind him. So, what happened to her? 

So then, he admits to realizing at the time that "something terrible had happened." But, he didn't know what? How could he not know when people were telling him that people were shot? He had the nerve to say that he didn't know that the President had been killed or even shot, but he knew that something terrible had happened. But, what other "something" could it have been?

Then, he said that he knew that the HSCA had published appeals looking for him, and he saw one such appeal one day when he was wrapping something with newspaper, and it just happened to contain the appeal. 

What the mother folk? He took newspapers to work to wrap small parts? He worked for an insurance company! So, what would he be wrapping? And as he was doing that, he just happened to notice a picture of himself in the newspaper that he was using to wrap the small parts? Try to imagine that happening to you. You're using a newspaper in a utilitarian way to wrap small parts, and then you casually notice that you're in the newspaper that you're handling. What are the freakin' odds of that?

But then, he didn't come forward even though he knew they were looking for him. You'd think they would have chastised him for that, but they didn't. 

Then, he changed his story again. Previously, he said he wasn't sure if he brought the umbrella from home or kept it at work. But then, the story became that there were a bunch of umbrellas and raincoats at work for anyone's use. And since he just returned it to the rack and left it there, someone else could have used it. 

Then, it came out that he consented to testify on the stipulation that he would not have to demonstrate how he handled the umbrella and what he did with it. In other words, the struggling that he did to get it open, he wouldn't demonstrate that. But, why would they agree to it? They had supoened him. They didn't have to agree to any terms. You'll come and you'll show us whatever the hell we ask you to show us. But, he said it would be embarrassing to him, so they let him off the hook. Nice of them. 

However, Chairman Stokes wanted to make sure that the umbrella that Witt brought didn't have a gun built into it. So, he had someone else open up the umbrella to demonstrate that. But, that is ridiculous because, obviously, Witt wasn't going to bring an umbrella with a gun in it.  So, if Witt been a gunman using his umbrella, all he had to do was show up with a different umbrella. Did that not occur to Stokes? Did he really think he was establishing something about 11/22/63 by showing that this umbrella in 1978 had no gun?

Witt said that one of his "good friends" informed the press that he was Umbrella Man. But, wouldn't a good friend go to him before going to anyone else? So, he couldn't have been that good a friend. And the HSCA had requested that informants come to them- not to the press. So, why didn't his good friend do that? 

Then he demonstrated what he heard of the shots by rappnig his knuckles on the table rapidly in succession. So, he heard shots but didn't know they were shots? Did he consider at the time that they were shots, or that they might be shots? He wouldn't concede that. 

Then, there was an interesting question from a Mr. Devine who actually brought up Neville Chamberlain.

Then, a Mr. Ford pointed out that for being 15 years old, the umbrella looked like it was in "pretty good shape." Witt agreed. Then he asked Witt why he kept it so long, why he didn't replace it. But, if it was in good shape, why wouldn't he keep it? Do you throw out an umbrella just because it reaches a certain age?

Then, Witt said that he had so many umbrellas that he didn't use this one very often because it was big and cumbersome. So, that explained why it was in such good shape after 15 years. 

When asked how many umbrellas he owned, he said he had no idea. HOW COULD THAT BE TRUE? HOW COULD SOMEONE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY UMBRELLAS THEY OWN?

And then he was asked if he could have brought the wrong umbrella, and he said it was possible but unlikely because of how large and clumsy it was. 

Witt was hilarious. I'm laughing out loud here. It's like the guy hoarded umbrellas. 

Then, he was passed off to a Mr. Edgar who asked him, again, why he didn't come forward, and Witt said that he thought it would be dangerous to him and his family. Then Edgar, like the others, kept thanking him for coming forward. But, he was supoened, and he admitted that he wouldn't have come forward had he not been supoened. So, what were they thanking him for?

Note that Witt denied knowing that Umbrella Man was a person of interest in the case. And besides denying that he knew Dark Complected Man, he claimed to be unaware that he had a two-way radio. But, here is Dark Complected Man talking on the radio with Umbrella Man looking at him.

And that's about the whole of his interminal grueling testimony. And I don't mean grueling to him but grueling to me for having to wade through it. 

So, what's the bottom line about Umbrella Man? I don't think he was Witt. I don't think there is anything credible about Witt's entire story. And remember, he claimed to know nothing about Neville Chamberlain, just that the Kennedys were offended by the sight of umbrellas for some vague reason relating to their father, and that is such bull shit. Witt never claimed to be a World War 2 buff. He provided no credible reason for why he would want to hassle Kennedy. He kept emphasizing what a private person he was and not wanting attention. And yet he went out hoping to have a personal, one on one, confrontation with the President of the United States? 

To me, there is no question that Umbrella Man, whoever he really was, was involved in the assassination. But, was he a signaller or a shooter? I think he was a shooter. I'm not going to swear by it, but it's an either/or situation, and I think it's more likely he was a shooter. Why? Because there is solid evidence that there really was an umbrella gun. Read it yourself. It's the testimony of Charles Senseney.  

And Senseney, unlike Witt, was a straight talker and a very credible witness. The CIA really did hire him to develop an umbrella gun, and it was operational. He said it could knock out a junkyard dog in 2 seconds.  I believe Senseney. 

So, since the umbrella gun existed, it would be a strange and unlikely coincidence if Umbrella Man also used an umbrella as a signalling device.  Signalling could have been done much more discreetly and subtly without an umbrella. 

I don't believe in coincidences, especially when it comes to the JFK assassination. Since the CIA definitely had an umbrella gun in 1963, I say that's what the Umbrella Man had: an umbrella gun.