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.

 On the left is a goat that was exposed to a nerve agent in a military experiment. On the right is a drawing of a nerve agent victim. You see the similarity to JFK.

JFK was NOT still reacting to the throat shot in this image. He resolved that by putting his hand over his mouth and coughing. That resolved the obstruction. So, he was done with that, and you can't blame his peculiar arrangement on that.

And you can't blame his back brace either. The fact is that he was stuck in spasm, and it was due to the nerve agent that was shot into him high on the hill.

Neither the very shallow back shot nor the puncture wound in his throat caused any damage to his brain or spinal cord. So, you can't blame his dyskinesia on that And, if he had suffered a brain or cord trauma, it would have caused paralysis, just as it did to Dr. Thorburn's patient, not spasticity. JFK had spasticity.

And he had more than spasticity. He had a complete mental collapse. It was like he was extremely inebriated and to the point of being unable to talk or communicate in any way. He also lacked the mental wherewithal to perceive the situation he was in and respond to it. Again: he had no traumatic brain injury, and yet, something was terribly wrong with his brain. His conscious, rational brain was not working. Mentally, he was reduced to less than a child; it was more like infancy. He could take no evasive action. Something as simple as hunkering down in the limo he couldn't do. Again: he had no brain injury. Poisoning is the only thing that can explain it.

The people who are fighting me on this want to ignore the fact the CIA did develop a weapon to do this, and they definitely had it in 1963. The Director of the CIA said so, and he said that it worked; that it was effective.

And I assure that a bullet did NOT traverse Kennedy's neck. None of the doctors at Parkland or Bethesda thought that happened. It wasn't until the next day that Humes talked to Perry and found out about the throat wound that the idea arose. So, what was the logical thing to do in that situation? It was to go back to the body and dissect it to find out if the back wound and the throat wound were connected. Do you realize the degree of certainty that was available to them about this? And I mean the degree of certainty to determine if it did or didn't. And yet, they didn't do it. They just did it be fiat. They just declared that it did. They didn't subject it to proof, even though they easily could have done it. It was hanging there like a ripe fruit waiting to be picked, but they wouldn't do it.

Humes was a coward. He should have said, "I know you are my superior officers, but I am the doctor here. Now, either you are going to let me go back in and find out what happened to him, or I am going to tell this country- and the world- that you are obstructing justice. Either you let me do it, or it's friggin' war. Take your choice." That's what he would have said if he was a real man. But, he wasn't. He was a mouse.

 The story of the Zapruder film is that JFK was fine and dandy until he disappeared behind the sign. Then it happened behind the sign, which was like the magician’s curtain.

But, JFK was already shot before he disappeared behind the sign, and you can see it in the film. You just have to look closely.

In frame 188, JFK is looking at the spectators and waving. He seems to be OK. But, notice that Jackie is already starting to turn towards him. Now, compare it to frame 206, in which she is turned all the way towards him. She has totally stopped waving and engaging with spectators, and she is focused solely on him. And JFK is not waving and engaging with spectators anymore either. He is pointed straight ahead, and it looks like he has his hand over his face. He didn’t do that. It’s a smudge- one that they added. They did it because he undoubtedly had a distraught look on his face because of what was happening to him- internally.  

Why is Jackie looking at him? Because: she knows that something is wrong; terribly wrong. And she said so in her testimony. She said she was looking left (working the crowd) when she heard “terrible noises.” So, she looked to her right to check on her husband, and she saw that he had a “quizzical” look on his face. That’s quizzical as in: “What is going on inside of me?” Then, in the very next sentence, it went to her seeing a piece of his skull fly off.  

Wait. That doesn’t make sense. His skull flying off was the last thing that happened. It was after frame 313.  How could it go from her first turning to look at him to seeing his head flying off? What about everything in-between?  

It has been admitted the Jackie’s testimony was edited. This is from Google AI:

“Yes, Jackie Kennedy’s testimony was edited by the Warren Commission before publication. The Commission stated they removed "brief" and "irrelevant" portions of her testimony, primarily for reasons of taste and to exclude specific, graphic descriptions of the President's wounds”

Are they kidding? They published graphic images of the President’s wounds. Considering the gravity of this, and the importance of finding out exactly what happened, it is an outrage that they edited her testimony. They did it to change her story; to conform it to the official story.

Jackie said that JFK never spoke. They published that. But, they didn’t ask her if she spoke to him. I tell you that she must have. She must have asked him what was wrong. How could she not?  And don’t anybody say that he couldn’t talk because he was shot in the throat because his larynx was unaffected. Plus, if he couldn’t talk, he would have tried to communicate another way- by gesturing, pointing, etc. But, he didn’t do that, and he didn’t do anything. He did nothing to save himself or protect anyone else. He just sat there like a sitting duck. DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT HIS MIND WAS GONE?

 Yet, at that point, he had suffered no brain damage. All he had was a shallow wound in his back that damaged no vital tissue, and he had a puncture wound in his throat that damaged his trachea some, but did not damage his brain. And yet, he lost his mind? HE LOST HIS MIND DUE TO POISONING, NOT TRAUMA.

It was because of what they shot into him at frame 190. Sprague and Cutler said he was shot at frame 190. But, it wasn’t a bullet. A bullet could not have stopped that short. He was shot in the back, just to the right of the 3^rd thoracic vertebra, with a drug-laced ice flechette. And he rode down the hill that way, not waving, not engaging; but undergoing severe internal changes that worsened by the second.

Then, when he got to the freeway sign, he was shot in the throat by Umbrella Man. It was a very close shot. Umbrella Man was just a few feet away from JFK at the time. And the limo was stopped so that he could do it.

The throat shot obstructed JFK’s breathing. In a panic, he raised his hands to deal with it. It may have been just a bolus of blood, and he cleared it by coughing once with his hand over his mouth. But then, he couldn’t put his arms down. His arms were stuck- frozen in spasm- from the nerve agent that was shot into him.

Jackie didn’t know what happened. She only knew that he was very sick. She placed her hands on his left arm and tried to coax it down. You can see her doing that right here:

 https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2026/02/this-is-jackie-leaning-into-jfks-arm.html  

She got his arm down a little, but his spasms and mental collapse continued. One can only imagine what she said to him. Then he took the fatal head shot which effectively killed him. It took some time for all his vital activity to stop, but he was gone, and the Parkland doctors knew it.

Now, I realize that when you first hear that he was shot with a nerve agent, you recoil. You pull back. It sounds farfetched. It sounds like something from a Mission Impossible movie. I get that. But, it is a known fact that the CIA, in the 1950s, developed a gun that shot an ice dart into people, delivering a nerve agent. You can watch the Church hearing about it right now, where CIA Director William Colby testified about it. If you’re an honest person, who really seeks the truth, you’ll watch it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fomOeIhEWDg

So, the poison ice dart is NOT farfetched. You know now that it existed and at that time. Nerve agents work by blocking an enzyme called cholinesterase. Cholinesterase is what turns off acetylcholine, which is the neurotransmitter that tells muscles to contract. Without cholinesterase, muscle contractions keep going. They don’t cease. They continue, and it’s painful. We can see that that was happening to Kennedy; that his muscles were seizing up.

 Knowing that the CIA developed a poison ice dart weapon in the 1950s is a game-changer. It makes the nerve agent hypothesis not just possible and plausible, but compelling. It’s the only thing that explains what we see in the film.

Don’t tell me it was because a bullet went through his neck because a bullet did NOT go through his neck. Why do you think they wouldn’t let Humes dissect Kennedy? Just think about how easy it would have been to find out if the back wound and the throat wound were connected. They wouldn’t let him do it because they knew darn well that those wounds were not connected.

The killing of Kennedy was a State murder followed by 62 years of State lies. But, we can put a stop to it. The most monstrous crime of the 20^th century needs to be exposed, and we can expose it. It’s not going to take money or power or access; just grass-roots unity online. That's all we need. We can do this. So, let's do it.

 This is Jackie leaning into JFK's arm, trying to coax it down. She didn't know what was happening. If she had any thought that he was shot, wouldn't she have gotten down, and gotten him down? 

 Why on Earth would JFK be holding his arms up like that? We could make jokes about it, as I have done. But, he wasn't doing it voluntariliy. He was in spasm. He had no control over it. And he couldn't stop it. He couldn't release it. And he did not, at the time, have a tunnel going through his neck from back to front in the midline. Would you stop and think about how catastrophic that would be? He would have gone into shock and lost consciousness.

 I watched PBS Cold Case: JFK from 2013.

I did vaguely remember it. It features a father and son who did some shooting experiments. But, the program started with them admitting that the Carcano rifle was extremely undesirable, that there were many better rifles that Oswald could have bought. So, why did Oswald buy the Carcano? Because it was cheap.

Let’s step back from that for a second because Oswald denied that he owned a rifle. I know that the FBI said that he mail-ordered one from Chicago, but who are you going to believe? The FBI or Oswald?

Some may think that’s funny, but it’s not. Oswald wasn’t stupid. He professed his innocence, and if he owned a rifle, he certainly would have admitted owning it. He would have said, “Yes, I own a rifle, but I didn’t shoot anyone with it.” It would be insane for an innocent person who owned a rifle to deny that he owned it. I own two guns. Do you think I would ever deny that to the police? If they told me my gun was used to murder someone, I would say, “Well, it wasn’t by me. Someone must have stolen my gun and done it.” I wouldn’t lie, and neither would Oswald.

But, you say you think Oswald was guilty? It doesn’t matter. This was supposed to be an investigation to determine if he was guilty. So, you can’t start off with the assumption that he was. You’re trying to find out if he was. So, you can’t presume he was. You just don’t have the right.

Here is John Armstrong’s brilliant analysis that proves that Oswald did not order a rifle from Chicago.

[https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html](https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html)

Back to Cold Case JFK, you hear a voice say “Dallas Police had found the rifle, the cartridges, Oswald’s fingerprints- they had the case sewed up in an excellent way in 2 days.”

That was a bold-faced lie. Dallas Police could not find Oswald’s fingerprints on the rifle. Neither could the FBI. Days later, after Oswald was dead, they claimed to find a partial palmprint. That was dubious and certainly not proven, but it’s not a fingerprint.

I’m just 13 minutes into the program, and it is already screaming to me that it’s propaganda.

They said very little about the autopsy, and they left out the most important thing. The autopsists did the whole thing without knowing that there was a bullet wound in the throat. They found what appeared to be a shallow wound in his back, which had no bullet in it. Why didn’t Humes dissect Kennedy and find out exactly where that wound went? The next day Humes talked to Perry and found out about the throat wound. So, why didn’t Humes insist on going back and CONFIRMING that the back wound and the throat wound were connected? And if they wouldn’t let him, then he should have gone on a public rampage of protest, traveling the country, and I mean akin to yelling in the streets that “Soylent Green is people!” Do you understand that there is just no excuse for not doing it?

They also mentioned that a bullet was found on a stretcher, but that bullet was associated with Connally, not JFK. The idea that they were hit by the same bullet wasn’t proposed until April 1964. It had no bearing on what was going on in 1963.

All the doctors except one who probed the wound said that it was located next to T3, including JFK’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley. He even put it on JFK’s death certificate. A bullet that entered JFK’s back at a downward angle at T3 could not come out his throat.

But, what really matters, and what is screaming at us in no uncertain terms is THEY COULD HAVE EASILY CONFIRMED IF THE BACK AND THROAT WOUNDS WERE CONNECTED, BUT THEY DIDN’T DO IT. That is unforgivable, inexcusable, reprehensible, and intolerable.

Of course, the one doctor who said otherwise was Humes. He didn’t give a spinal segment. He made some arcane measurements and then said it was “slightly above the superior margin of the scapula” which would put it between T1 and T2.

No mention was made of the discrepancy between what the Parkland doctors reported about JFK’s massive head wound and what the autopsy doctors claimed. The Parkland doctors all said that it was in the lower right occiput, and they all demonstrated it with a fist behind their head on the right. However, Humes said the blowout wound was on the top and right side of JFKs’ head, above his right ear. He said that an entrance wound was found slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance, which was in the area that the Parkland doctors said was blown out.

This discrepancy between the Parkland doctors and the Bethesda doctors is Ground Zero in the JFK debate, and the program didn’t even mention it.

Then, they went into the Zapruder film. They said that before JFK disappeared behind the sign, there was no sign that he was hit. That isn’t true. You can see that JFK’s face was obscured before he disappeared behind the sign. And you can plainly see that Jackie had stopped waving and had turned towards him long before they disappeared behind the sign. She knew that something was wrong.

In frame 206, JFK wasn’t waving. It looks like he was covering his face with his hand, but he didn’t do that either. They did it with paint. And you can see that Jackie is turned and looking at him. Supposedly, this was before anything happened to him, but that is a lie. He was already shot in the back, and he was reacting to it.

Then, they got to Luke Hague and his son Mike who were going to test the rifle. First, they wanted to determine if the bullet could cause 7 wounds in 2 men. So, they shot into pine. Huh. I have to laugh. Pine is soft. It’s not a hardwood. You’re lucky if you can pound a nail in it without it splitting.

Then, they shot into gels that were supposed to have the same density as muscle, and they were satisfied that it penetrated far enough into the gel to equal the density of all the tissue affected by the 7 wounds. But, stop a second. What difference does it make? What does it prove? Even if you think the test is valid, which I don’t, it certainly doesn’t prove that Oswald did it.

In other words, this whole thing just presumed that Oswald did own a rifle, that he was up on the 6th floor, and he was shooting at Kennedy. Therefore, all they had to do was establish that the rifle was up to the task, and voila, it meant Oswald must be guilty. But, that is ridiculous. Oswald didn’t even own a rifle. And he wasn’t up on the 6th floor. He was standing in the doorway during the shooting. And, it has never even been proven that any of the shots came from the infamous 6th floor window.

Then, they said that a shot from behind the fence would have traversed Kennedy’s head, meaning gone out the left side. Perhaps if it was an FMJ bullet, but the bullet used in the fatal head shot was a frangible bullet that was designed to explode. And they admitted that there were bullet fragments in Kennedy’s head. But, they assumed the same kind of bullet that caused 7 wounds in 2 men and emerged pristine was significantly deformed the instant it struck his head.

They ended with this old guy named Larry whose job it was to explain how a bullet shot from a downward angle, from way up on the 6th floor at the top of the hill, (remember, they went downhill) could hit Kennedy at the bottom of his skull in back and then for the bullet to go up and exit high on his head. So, supposedly, the bullet went down and then up. Larry explained that the bullet got deformed, which gave it yaw, and it rose like a plane inside Kennedy’s head. He even made a motion with his hand like a plane taking off. And he said that it caused a pressure wave in his head that stimulated every nerve in his body, “and since the back muscles are stronger than the abdominal muscles, it caused him to arch dramatically backwards” which he demonstrated.

Uh, no, he didn’t. JFK did NOT arch dramatically backwards. That’s a crock of bull shit, Larry.

Don’t watch this horrible this thing. It’s awful. It’s a waste of time. It’s just appalling sophistry dressed up in pseudo-scientific lingo. But, do watch Larry because that old blowhard is funny. He comes on near the end. He reminds me of Baghdad Bob from the Iraq War, the same kind of professional bloviator. And Americans liked Baghdad Bob, which is probably why they didn’t harm him. They didn’t execute him, nor did they imprison him. How could they when he was affectionately known as Baghdad Bob? You’ll get a kick out of Larry the same way. Here’s the link. He starts at 49 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39SKBd8P9-U&t=1585s