This is the photo that Mary Moorman took of her friend from church: Officer Glenn McBride. It was several minutes ahead of JFK. It's exactly what you would expect; a photo of his face. The only way she could get that was by taking the picture BEFORE he reached her. And, the only way she could capture the faces of the Kennedys, which she said was her intention, was by taking their picture BEFORE they reached her.

You should take a close look at this picture because JFK was probably in the exact same spot when she photographed him. McBride is probably right across from the Stemmons freeway sign, which is not in the picture. You do see the RL Thornton freeway sign, which is right above his head. That sign was different because instead of having narrow metal poles to support the sign, it had thick wooden posts. And you can see that in this photo. Notice how you can see the slope of the road. It really looks like he is going downhill. Mary kept saying that she was poised and positioned to take the photo of the Kennedys for quite a few seconds before she pressed the shudder. it's obvious that she was waiting for them to get as close to her as possible to maximize the capture of their faces before further progress of the limo started putting them in profile to her- which she didn't want. There was a "sweet spot" in which they were as large as possible and with their faces in full view. And I think she did a good job of capturing that sweet spot with Glenn McBride.

But, what reason is there to think that, starting as early as she did, having the camera trained on them well in advance, that she postponed taking the picture until they had passed her, leaving just the backs of their heads? There is no reason to think that at all. It is nonsensical. And with this picture of Officer McBride, Mary proved to us that she had no trouble capturing the sweet spot.

So, are you going to take the attitude that, despite all that, the Moorman photo shows the backs of their heads, therefore, it must be what Mary did? No! Don't do that. It is not good thinking. This is the JFK assassination- the evil and Machiavellian JFK assassination.

The feds kept going back to Mary to borrow her photo, over and over again. Why? it was admitted that, not only was the photo duplicated on 11/22/63, but they made a negative of it, so that they could make unlimited copies in the future. So, what did they keep needing Mary's original for? And then, they told her a preposterous story about how a white thumbprint got put on the photo. You can't press your thumb into a dry Polaroid photo and leave a mark. There would have to be some white, labile medium on your thumb to leave such a mark. But, why would there be any such medium on a FBI agent's thumb, and why would he handle the photo if there were? It is not credible. It is not plausible.

The thumbprint was deliberate. It had a purpose. It was to obscure something. And I will soon show you what it was.

But for now, I will leave you with this: I think the feds kept borrowing Mary's photo, over and over again, because each time, they altered it a little bit. And finally, they replaced it. But, there was something in the alternate photo that they needed to cover up. And they covered it up with the thumbprint.

 I am amazed that this video is still up on Youtube because it reveals so much about the JFK assassination. It's a video of Jean Hill and Mary Moorman that was shot months after the assassination. I believe it was done in the Spring of 1964.

Jean Hill came first, and you can skip her part. Just watch Mary who starts at 1:43.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx34V4-nk1M

The first thing she says is: "I stepped out into the street." Then, she shows how she took her picture, which was facing up Elm, that is, facing the approaching limo. She said she stood there for quite a few seconds "because I wanted to make sure that they were looking at me." She said, "I followed it for so many seconds, and then I did take the picture."

Now, we have to take her at her word. There is no basis to believe that she lied or that she didn't remember what she did. It's obvious from what she said that she wanted to capture their faces. And there is no reason to doubt that she did.

And a few minutes prior to that, she photographed her friend Officer Glenn McBride, whom she knew from church, and she captured his face the very same way she described capturing the faces of the Kennedys.

Over time, Mary changed her story. She started to deny that she stepped into the street. And she changed her story by saying that she didn't take the picture until the Kennedys were right across from her, directly in line with her. There is no reason to believe that she did that. We have to go by her first statement. But, her revised statement does not match the Moorman photo either. To match the Moorman photo, she would have had to say, "I waited until they passed me; then I shot the backs of their heads."

So, accepting what she first said, as we must do, we have to assume that the photo she took was very different from the Moorman photo that we have. In fact, it must have been the opposite of the Moorman photo. Instead of shooting them after they passed her, she shot them before they reached her. And instead of capturing the backs of their heads, she captured their faces, just as she captured the face of Officer Glenn McBride.

So, how did Mary Moorman come to accept the extant Moorman photo as her own? How did she talk herself into believing that that was the photo that she took?

I tell you that there was mind control involved. In 2013, she did a very long interview for the 50th. It was 4 hours long. I watched the whole thing. It used to be available on Youtube, but it no longer is.

But, in that interview, she said that after the assassination, federal agents kept coming back to her and borrowing her photo. The FBI. The CIA. The Secret Service. And the FBI again. And when the FBI returned it the second time, the big white thumbprint was on it, which they said was an accident.

Now, do you believe that? That the white thumbprint was an accident? If you do, you are either the dumbest mudderbloker who ever lived OR you are soaked in the blood of John Kennedy and Lee Oswald, both of whom were killed by the U.S. government.

But, when they returned that photo to her, which they said was accidentally damaged, what do you think they did? They admitted that they damaged her invaluable historical photo. Do you think they just made an apology and left it at that? What happens when a person damages someone else's property? What does the person who suffered the damage do afterwards? And in this case, the one that did the damage was the U.S. government. And what does the U.S. government have? It has a printing press. And what can it do with that printing press? It can create any amount of money that it wants. It can do it without a printing press. How is the U.S government paying for its evil, monstrous war on Iran right now that is costing billions every day, heaped on top of all the other spending?

I have no evidence that Mary Moorman was paid for the damage that was done to her photo. And she has never said that she was paid. But, the situation is that the U.S. government damaged her very valuable historical photo, and I can't imagine that they would do that damage without compensating her, especially since we live in a country in which damaging another's property results in legal judgments.

So, the question is: Why wouldn't they have given her some money? And by "some" I mean a substantial amount of money.

Again, I have no concrete knowledge of any payout to Mary, and everything I am saying is hypothetical. Mary has never said that she was paid any money. But, to the best of my knowledge, she has never said that she wasn't paid. Non-disclosure agreements get negotiated every day in this country.

Again, I am NOT claiming to know that Mary was paid. And I admit that she has never said that she was paid, and the U.S. government has never said that they paid her. However, I do know, concretely, that Marina Oswald was paid a lot of money after the assassination. There was money from a ghost-written book; money for Oswald's "Historic Diary" and $75,000 for the film rights to her life story that was paid to her by an Italian film company that never made the film and soon went out of business after paying her the money. That company was called "Tex-Italia." How appropriate.

And of course, Marina went on to tell the Warren Commission all the things that the FBI wanted her to tell them, including that Oswald sought to kill Nixon in Dallas in April 1963, even though Nixon wasn't in Dallas in April 1963.

But, enough about that. What I really want to talk about is what Mary's real photo captured. Since she got into the street and waited in the street for quite a few seconds before taking her picture, it means that the limo couldn't have been that close. Remember that Officer BJ Martin was hugging the curb on his motorcycle. So, how could she be in the street if he was bearing down on her? So, the limo and its escorts must have been a ways off.

So, what did Mary capture that was so dangerous to the official story? IT MUST HAVE BEEN WHATEVER HAPPENED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT JFK DISAPPEARED BEHIND THE FREEWAY SIGN AND THE TIME HE REAPPEARED ON THE OTHER SIDE. If you accept that what the Zapruder film has from frame 225 on is legit, then what did it matter if Mary captured the same thing? SHE MUST HAVE CAPTURED WHATEVER THE PHONY SIGN WAS PUT IN THERE TO HIDE.

So, what happened in that space? We're talking from frame 208 to 224. So either Mary captured JFK being shot in the throat OR she just captured him reacting to the back shot before he was shot in the throat. Either one was fatal to the official story.

Everything I have told you is true. JFK was shot in the back high on the hill with an ice dart containing a nerve agent that caused only a shallow wound. And it was long before he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man, which was a puncture wound in the midline of his throat. And that shot too involved a dissolvable missile.

 I am now going to lay out exactly how the attack on Kennedy went down. I don’t address all aspects of the assassination. I don’t claim to be an expert on all aspects. But, I am absolutely certain about what I’m about to tell you, and it is supported by evidence that is extremely compelling, as I will explain.

As they were rounding the corner from Houston to Elm, with LBJ’s SS agents having their door open, the last conversation that JFK had in his life took place between him and Nellie Connally. She said, “You can’t say that Texans didn’t turn out for you.” And he responded, “You’re right; I certainly can’t.”  He never spoke again after that, and HE NEVER TRIED TO COMMUNICATE AGAIN IN ANY WAY AFTER THAT. That is extremely significant because he was a very smart man, and he had been in combat in WW2. And he certainly would have known that he was being shot at- if he were in his right mind.  

And even if you think he couldn’t speak because of the throat trauma, he would have sought to communicate some other way- non-verbally.  But, he couldn’t communicate at all because he suffered a complete mental collapse.

And to everyone who believes that the Single Bullet Theory is bull shit, and it is, what is he left with after you reject the Single Bullet Theory? HE IS LEFT WITH JUST A SHALLOW WOUND IN HIS BACK AND A PUNCTURE WOUND IN HIS THROAT.  His mind would have been 100% intact. But, it wasn’t. His mind was gone. It wasn’t from trauma; it was from poisoning.

So, right after his exchange with Nellie, JFK was shot in the back high on the hill, and it struck him just to the right of third thoracic vertebra. And there is no doubt about that location. When his body was lying prone on the table at Bethesda, the doctors had no trouble locating that wound. That’s because even prone, the Vertebra Prominems sticks out as a visible bump. And that is C7. This is from Google AI:

AI Overview

Yes, the Vertebra Prominens (C7 vertebra) typically remains a visible or palpable, protruding bump even when a person is lying in a prone (face-down) position.

 So, they counted down from C7 and got to T3, which is where the wound was. JFK’s own physician, Dr. George Burkley, drew a diagram of it. And he even put it on JFK’s death certificate that he was shot in the back at the level of T3.

 But, it was a very shallow wound- much to shallow for a metal bullet to have made. Consider a metal bullet traveling 2000 feet per second. When it makes contact, its energy has to be dissipated before the bullet can stop. How is it dissipated? By the resistance of the tissue. It comes down to Newton’s Laws of Motion. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The bullet was acting on JFK’s tissues, but, at the same time, his tissues were acting on the bullet, which was the reaction. 

 But, how much soft tissue would it take to exert enough resistance on the bullet to stop it? A lot more than 2 inches. And that bullet traveled less than 2 inches. How do we know? Well, it didn’t enter his lungs or even violate the pleura. It went through only skin, fascia, and muscle. And that’s why it is physically impossible that a metal bullet struck him in the back. Don’t you know? WHEN YOU LOSE THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY, YOU LOSE THE METAL BULLET.

So, JFK had to have been hit with something other than a metal bullet. But, besides the back wound being very shallow, it was also empty. There was no bullet in it. Now, the notion that it fell out is just plain stupid.  Falling is a function of gravity, and there was no gravitational force pushing on it. Furthermore, the bullet went in through three layers of clothing, and the holes in the clothing would have had to remain aligned for the bullet to go back out through them. That is a ridiculous. It is as unlikely as a planetary alignment.

There are two different versions of the “bullet fell out” claim, both equally stupid. One was by Paul Landis, the SS agent, and the other was by a neighbor of Sam Kinney, the agent who drove the Queen Mary. You need to brush them both off the same way you would scrape dog crap off the sole of your shoe.

 The impact of the ice dart on JFK was very minor. The CIA heart attack gun was designed so that the victim would not know that they were shot. CIA Director William Colby said that it felt like nothing more than a mosquito bite. But, very quickly, JFK started feeling bad, and I mean sick. It included headache, chest tightness, blurred vision, nausea, confusion, other-worldliness, as well as fear and panic.

 Right away, Jackie quit politicking and turned her gaze and attention to her husband, and she stayed looking at him for the duration. In the early 180s of the Z-film, she starts making the turn, and by 188, she is fully turned and has her eyes on him,  never to take her eyes off of him again.  

 Neither of them ever wave again, and as they approach the bogus freeway sign, she is turned looking at him, and he is facing straight ahead with a glob over his face.  You can see it 195, and it stays like that for the rest of Part 1 of the Zapruder film.  

 Also, In the Crofts, Betzner, and Willis photos, neither JFK nor Jackie are waving or engaging with the spectators in any way. So, there’s your confirmation. He was absorbed in what was happening to him, and she was absorbed with him.

 Next came the throat shot.  No doubt it was visible in the film, but they used the phony sign to cover it up. So, what do we know about the throat shot? We know that that tiny little spot at the bottom of his throat was the target. They weren’t trying to shoot him in the face or in the chest. If they had done that, the lone gunman from the rear theory would have died. So, how did they expect to get away with shooting him in the throat? Simple. They planned all along to say that it was an exit wound.

 They knew that a back wound was going to be found with no bullet in it. So, if they created a throat wound that also had no bullet, they could say that the back bullet traversed him. Bingo. The two empty holes would be explained. So, the Single Bullet Theory was planned in advance except that it didn’t include Connally.

 And within a few short minutes, JFK was in the hands of Dr. Malcolm Perry, who was an INDEPENDENT doctor. NOT A GOVERNMENT BUT AN INDEPENDENT DOCTOR.  And Dr. Perry said that JFK had a small entrance wound in his throat, but that there was no bullet inside him, and no exit wound for that shot either.

 And don’t tell me it was dug-out at the pre-autopsy because Perry got to JFK before the pre-autopsy.  

 So, there was no bullet in Kennedy’s throat, which means that that shot did not involve a metal bullet either. And because the target area was very small - no bigger than a quarter- that shot had to be taken from up close. And it was definitely taken from the north side of Elm. So, who was close to Kennedy on the north side of Elm? Umbrella Man was. He was just a few feet away from him at the time of the shot.

 I know I posted the link to the testimony of Charles Senseney before, but now, for the first time, I am going to give you the essentials from it. He was employed as a civilian contractor at Fort Detrick in Maryland, which was the center of the U.S. biological warfare program.  And Senseney gave the year. It was 1953, so 10 years before the JFK assassination. He said he was in the hardware department, not the agent department. And by “agent,” he meant the biological agent that would be delivered with the hardware he developed. He said the CIA was also involved in the project, but they didn’t call themselves that. They called themselves the Staff Support Group.

 Senseney said he was involved in the making of the heart attack gun which delivered what he called “muscle poison.” And muscle poisoning is exactly what we see on JFK, which is why he maintained that freaky pose with his arms raised, stiff and frozen, in the Z-film. Senseney said that by 1970, a decision was made to destroy all the biological agents except one, the shellfish toxin, which is a nerve agent.

 He said that the development of exotic weapons was being done for Special Ops and the CIA. Senseney said he made an M1 weapon (that could deliver a nerve agent) that was shot from a walking cane, and also an umbrella. He said that it required a hand-held object that shot a dart to deliver the nerve agent.

 Now, returning to Elm Street, the throat shot must have been taken from up-close from the north side of Elm, and the only one standing there with an object that Senseney mentioned was Umbrella Man. You can’t go by any of the imagery because they doctored and falsified all the images of Umbrella Man. Eventually, they did a reenactment that displayed UM’s bare face, which was done after the Stemmons Freeway sign was removed, which is why the phony sign in the image is so weird and wacky, being square instead of oblong, and placed too far east to be the real sign.

 I am sure that Umbrella Man took the throat shot because he was the only one who was in position to take it, and he used one of the weapons that Charles Senseney developed.

 So, JFK was shot in the throat with a dart by Umbrella Man, and it had the immediate effect to obstructing JFK’s breathing. He panicked and raised his hands up. With his left hand, he pulled on his tie. And with his right hand, he put it over his mouth and coughed. And that worked. In one cough, he resolved the obstruction. Dr. David Mantik thinks it was probably just a bolus of blood, and that makes sense because if he were choking on a bullet, he probably couldn’t dislodge it in one cough. But, he did resolve that whole issue in one cough. BUT THEN, HE COULDN’T PUT HIS ARMS DOWN. They were frozen, which was the effect of the nerve agent.  That was followed by a long stretch in which Connally got shot, and Jackie tried to coax JFK’s arm down by pressing on it. She got it down a little, but she mostly just tipped him towards her.

 And then at 313, he was hit in the right temple with a frangible bullet, which was designed to explode. They used that kind of bullet because a FMJ would very likely have traversed his head and could have hit Jackie.

 Some researchers, with whom I engage, including Dr. Mantik, think that JFK was shot in the back of the head a tiny fraction of a second before the fatal head shot. I don’t see any evidence of that in the Z-film, but the plotters may have removed it. Dr. Mantik doesn’t claim it based on the Z-film; he claims it based on the x-rays. Of course, since the Z-film was altered, the x-rays were probably altered too. So, I am open to it, but I am not as sure about it as he is. It’s not like money in the bank.

 But, what is like money in the bank is that JFK was shot in the back with the nerve agent high on the hill, no more than 30 yards from the intersection, and maybe just 25 yards. Then, when he was across from the pergola, he was shot in the throat with a dissolving dart that was shot by Umbrella Man with his umbrella. And then he took the fatal head shot from someone who shot a frangible bullet from behind the fence.

 Obviously, there were other shots because Connally got shot, and there were missed shots, and I mentioned the possibility of a preceding head shot. But, the three shots I have laid out here are the essence of how they killed Kennedy.  Please share this.

  Read this testimony of Louie Steven Witt.  

Mr. GENZMAN. What happened next? I believe you testified that you were moving forward opening your umbrella as the motorcade was approaching? 

Mr. WITT. Yes. As I moved toward the street, still walking on the grass, I heard the shots that I eventually learned were shots. At the time somehow it didn't register as shots because they were so close together, and it was like hearing a string of firecrackers, or something like that. It didn't at that moment register on me as being shots. 

Mr. GENZMAN. Did you react in any way? 

Mr. WITT. No. I continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air. I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall. 

Mr. GENZMAN. What do you next recall happening? 

Mr. WITT. Let me go back a minute. As I was moving forward, I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements; I did not see this because of this thing in front of me. By the time I could see, one car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. That is what unfolded when I reached the point where I could see. 

*       *        *         *         *           *           *           *

But, in the Zapruder film, we see UM's umbrella, and it isn't in front of him. It is over his head. This is frame 219. 

And remember that Umbrella Man is in front of the sign there. So, he must have seen everything. He saw the shot to the throat. He saw the fatal head shot. What Louis Steven Witt said can't possibly be true. He lied. He lied about everything. He was NOT Umbrella Man. 

 I have images of Umbrella Man. Pete Kell sent them to me. UM's name was Frederick August Geb Jr. He was in the Army Air Force during World War 2, and he was awarded the Legion of Merit medal. I found a picture of it. This first image used to be circulated as an image of Umbrella Man. You don't see it any more. If you go on Google, Yahoo, Bing, or any other search engine, they don't pull this image up any more.

Pete said originally that Geb was "Embassy Man." I didn't know what he meant at the time, but now I do. He was referring to some of the images of Oswald in Mexico City that were submitted to the HSCA. Of course, Oswald never went to Mexico City. He said he didn't, and Mark Lane, whom I knew over the phone, said that he didn't. Lane figured it out by December 7, 1963. And that's why there are no valid images of Oswald in Mexico City. Here are more images of Geb submitted as Oswald. 

This is Geb when he was young.

This is his Legion of Merit medal for his service during WW2.

 Do you think Umbrella Man was legit? Just an insurance salesman who wanted to heckle JFK over his father being a Nazi sympathsizer? Well, I am going to disabuse you of that notion- once and for all.

Here is Umbrella Man in Bronson (left) and Willis (right). In Bronson, he's wearing a hat. The umbrella is high over his head, perhaps because he's wearing a hat. He is also wearing a long, heavy coat, and his face is completely obscured. 

But, in Willis, he is holding the umbrella low. Is there even room for him to be wearing a hat? And he doesn't seem to be wearing a long, voluminous coat, as in Bronson. And his umbrella looks small and clipped. 

And you can't even see the umbrella handle in Willis; it's invisible; whereas in Bronson, the handle is way too thick; it's like a pole. Compare it to reality: 

Bronson and Willis were taken at the same time, but in Bronson, UM is above the freeway sign, whereas in Willis, he is below the sign. Did I mention they were taken at the same time? 

Now, let's look at the reenacted photo of Umbrella Man.

That can't be from 11/22/63 because that freeway sign is bogus. It is in the wrong place, and it has the wrong shape. The sign was oblong. It was twice as wide as it was tall. But, that sign looks square. It's not even close to the shape that the real sign was. And the poles aren't vertical. You think it's the same sign as in Zapruder?

Why would the Newmans still be lying on the ground at this point? The shooting is long over. No one else is worried about being shot. Photographers are busy doing their job. So, why are the Newmans still lying on the ground? It's James Altgens on the left, but he didn't dawdle after the shooting. He rushed to the AP office to get his film developed so that his images could go out on the wire. So, how could he still be there? It is a reenacted and carefully choreographed image. 

Let's look closer at UM in the reenacted photo. 

Where's his hat? Is that it on the ground? I don't think so. It doesn't look like a hat to me. And who puts their hat on the ground? In the filthy street? So, from the gutter to his head? I don't think one would even put their umbrella in the street, let alone their hat. They forgot about his hat there. 

And they didn't want him in a hat there. They WANTED us to see his face there. They wanted us to get a good look at him, unlike in the other images of UM. Why? Because he's not Umbrella Man. That is a misdirection photo. The whole purpose of it was to mislead us about Umbrella Man. They gave us a good look at someone else  who is NOT Umbrella Man. Was he Witt? He may have been. It's possible. But, he wasn't Umbrella Man. And that's why we are seeing him so well. 

It isn't the only time they have done this. They did the same with Babushka Lady. They gave us a misdirection photo of her too. 

Babushka Lady wore white shoes, except that she wore dainty black shoes. Her scarf was very light, with a faint design, except that it was also red. The Babushka Lady on the left was very frumpy, and she was relatively tall. The Babushka Lady in the center was very short, and she was much younger. She wasn't frumpy at all; she stood elegantly; light on her feet; with perfect balance and posture. Look how vertical she is. She couldn't have been out of her 30s. I'm telling you that as Dr. Cinque. But, the Babushka  Lady on the right was old. She was in her 50s- or older.  She could easily be a grandma, but not the one in the center. 

Did Babushka Lady release her scarf when she crossed the street? If she did, she put it back on when she got to the other side. 

No, no, no. They concocted this phony image of her just to misdirect us. 

Babuhska Lady was an insider, sent to record the assassination. That's why she was in the Kill Zone. And she took the photo that we call the Moorman photo. The Moorman photo was taken diagonally from the rear. That's why the Kennedys aren't centered it, and it shows the back of their heads. And that's why they seem small compared to Hargis. Hargis was closer to the camera. You could draw a straight diagonal line from the Kennedys to Hargis to the photographer. 

And that's just what we see below. The Moorman photo was taken by Babushka Lady, who shot it diagonally from behind. You can see that she was close to Hargis, and that the distance to the Kennedys was additive. And that's why Hargis is so much larger than the Kennedys in the Moorman photo.  

Mary demonstrated how she took her photo. She took it in the street and was shooting up Elm. 

That is her demonstrating. She is standing in the street there, facing up Elm, and the white thing in her hands represents her camera. That is how she took her photo. 

Umbrella Man and Babushka Lady had something in common. They were both operatives. They were both shooters, except that Babushka shot with her camera, while UM shot with his umbrella gun. 

The U.S. government killed Kennedy, Tippit, and Oswald that weekend.  All three were the fathers of young children. It was monstrous what our government did. The individuals responsible are all dead, but the institutions they acted through are still with us. And those institutions are now going to have to pay the Piper. 

 Louie Steven Witt was not the Umbrella Man, and he was not a credible witness to the HSCA. He started by saying he left work on his lunch break looking for the motorcade because he wanted to heckle Kennedy with his umbrella. He said the reason was because he was a conservative guy, and the Kennedys are liberals, and he heard that umbrellas were a sore spot with them. Eventually, it came out that the umbrella symbolized Neville Chamberlain who appeased Hitler. But, Witt only mentioned Kennedy’s father.

For those that don’t know, Joseph P Kennedy Sr. was Ambassador to the UK, and in London, he held secret meetings with the German ambassador to try to deter the march to war. That was in 1939, when Witt was 15 years old. FDR, the most liberal President in US history, was leading the march to war. Conservative leaders like Senator Robert Taft were opposed to it. And Witt said he was a conservative even then, at age 15.

But, it makes no sense because if Witt was a conservative, who opposed the liberals like FDR who wanted war, and Kennedy’s father was trying to stop the war, then Witt should have liked JPK.

The truth is that FDR’s inner circle consisted of fanatical Soviet lovers, who adored Stalin and the Soviet Union. And that led FDR to send not just money and food and weapons to Stalin, but even U.S. planes. FDR loved “Uncle Joe.”

So, we are supposed to believe that this quiet little man, who had never been an activist about anything, decided to go out and heckle the President of the United States, expecting that the sight of an umbrella would cause JFK to think, “He is mocking my father!”

Are you buying that? Because I am not.

Witt said he made his way to Main Street with his umbrella, just assuming that the motorcade would go down Main since parades in Dallas usually did. So, he walked to Main, and then down Main all the way to Houston, then down Houston to Elm, and then down Elm to the Grassy Knoll, where he parked himself since it was sparsely populated. What a coincidence that it just happened to be the Kill Zone.

"There were 200,000 people standing on the side of the road in Dalles, but only one of them with an open umbrella was exactly where he was murdered, at that precise moment and at the closest possible distance." Marcel Behrens

Note that that was a lot of walking, and the sidewalk was crowded and stuffed with people. He was on his lunch break. How long are lunch breaks? Half an hour? Maybe 45 minutes, tops? And remember: he had to walk all that distance back to work. So, how could he be gone that long?

So, he gets to the Grassy Knoll, and what does he do? Wait on the sidewalk like everyone else? No. He goes up on the knoll and sits on the grass. Are you buying that? Because I’m not buying that either.

Then, when it was apparent that the motorcade was approaching, he got up. And that’s when he opened his umbrella. And it took him so long to open his umbrella, that he missed everything. He never saw JFK or Connally get shot. By the time, he got the umbrella up, a man was jumping on the limo, and then it sped away. So, Witt missed seeing the entire shooting.

We have all opened umbrellas in our lives, and we know how long it takes. Moreover, he didn’t have to obstruct his view at all. He could have opened the umbrella by holding it low in front of him or by holding it to his right. THE IDEA THAT HE HAD AN UMBRELLA IN HIS FACE THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE SHOOTING SEQUENCE IS PREPOSTEROUS. “Some people saw the President shot and his movements, but I did not because of this thing in front of me.”

That’s the bull shit he spewed. Are you buying it?

And what a farce about him and his umbrellas. His house was crawling with them. He said he had some by the door and some in his back closet, one in his car, and that he stumbled on one in the garage. And he never said he had a family. It sounded like it was just him. But, even if he did have a family, his umbrella story is still cockamamie.

And the whole thing was set up to refute Sprague and Cutler who had already published their Umbrella Gun thesis. Their diagram of the umbrella gun was shown to Witt, and he denied that it was his.

Louis Steven Witt was not Umbrella Man. He was liar and an actor. BUT, PEOPLE MUST HAVE PUT HIM UP TO IT.

They showed him this photo, and he said it was him, but he said he didn’t know the Negro man. But, if they didn’t know each other, why were they sitting so close together? People don’t do that. You don’t go sit that close to a stranger. It would be very rude, intimidating, and unnerving.

And guess what? The whole image is bogus. It can’t be real. That’s because the sign is the wrong shape. It’s square, but the sign was oblong. It was twice as wide as it was tall. I know its exact dimensions: it was 4 feet tall by 8 feet wide. The sign in the photo is square or nearly square. It is definitely not 4 x 8. So, what happened? What happened is that the sign was soon removed. It went up shortly before, and it was taken down shortly after the assassination. It was totally unwarranted and unnecessary to spoil the ambience of that park-like setting with that sign. It was put there to demarcate the start of the Kill Zone.

So, did they install a square sign for that picture? I doubt it. I think it was added to the photo.

Sprague and Cutler were right: Umbrella Man was a shooter. And Louie Steven Witt was a liar and pretender. What I have been telling you is the truth: The throat shot was taken by Umbrella Man using the umbrella gun from just a few feet away. Please share this.