This article by Karen Cleft is the best work I've seen on Umbrella Man. I agree with her about the alterations to the Willis and Betzner photos, about the contradictions about Umbrella Man in the different images of him. And I'll point out something that she didn't, that the image of him in the Zapruder film can't be real.

 How could UM's umbrella be as low as that when he was holding it high above his head, and he was wearing a hat that made him taller? That is too low. But, they did it that way because if they put it any higher it would have covered JFK. Here is UM in the Bronson photo.

Obviously, the umbrella was higher than what we see it in Zapruder. And in Bronson, UM was behind Dark Complected Man, not to his left.

And there are other discrepancies in UM's captures. For instance, in Betzner and Willis, he's behind the sign; in Bronson, he's well in front of it.

I have serious doubts about Bronson. Were all those people really there on the south side of Elm? Look at the shadow being cast by the short woman in the pink dress. Why is the shadow that she cast longer than the one cast by the man in the white jacket?

Bronson was on a pedestal at the corner of Main and Houston. So, he was rather far away, and those people closest to us weren't that much closer to Bronson. So, why do they loom so much larger? Gotta wonder about that. 

Karen Cleft makes the case that Umbrella Man was not a heckler and not a signaler; he was a shooter. The ridiculous and outlandish story told by the actor Louie Witt that he was taunting JFK about his father's actions in the lead-up to World War 2 is not credible. It's actually quite hilarious if you think about it. But not surprisingly, the HSCA squires ate it up. If you don't know that the HSCA was just as corrupt as the Warren Commission, you are out of touch. 

And the signalling story is false too. It was a big risk to have that guy standing there under an open umbrella on a warm, sunny day. They weren't going to have him do that just to pump his umbrella to signal, not when something far more subtle and discreet would have worked just as well.   

I'll give you the link to Karen's article. Yes, Umbrella Man was a shooter. The umbrella gun was not a figment of someone's imagination. It was real. It was invented by Charles Senseney. He was hired by the CIA to make it. He testified under oath. And the shot for which it was used was the throat shot. 

Now, why did they want to shoot JFK in the throat? It wasn't an accident. It's not like they were aiming for his head but hit his throat. Did the shot contain the paralysing nerve agent? It may have, but it's moot because they already hit him with that when he was high on the hill. So, that was already done.  The whole purpose of the back shot, which hit him just past the obelisk and before he got to the Croft Ladies, was to prep him for the kill shots that were to come; to immobilize him and disable him mentally.  

The primary purpose of the throat shot was to create what could be called an exit wound for the back shot, which was shallow and had no bullet. And since there was no bullet (the ice flechette melted), they needed to say that the bullet traversed him; that it went in and out. The throat shot provided evidence for that claim. 

The second reason for the throat shot was to take out his larynx so that there was no chance that he could speak. As it turned out, it didn't hit the larynx. It struck a little lower than that. It damaged his trachea but not his larynx. How accurate can a guy with an umbrella gun be? But, it didn't matter because JFK was so incapaciated by the drug-laced back shot that he couldn't speak anyway. He was mentally gone. 

Remember: the autopsists didn't think there was a throat shot. They thought it was a shallow back shot, and that's all, that the other wound was just a tracheolotmy. Not one of them said in advance, "Hey, maybe they're connected." But, when they found out afterwards that there was a bullet wound in his neck, their natural response must have been to go back and dissect the two wounds. But then, they found out that were not allowed to do that. And when the authorities announced that the deal was that the two shots were one and the bullet traversed Kennedy- which could easily have been confirmed by dissection- they went along with it because they were good little loyal military minions. Obeying came easy to them. 

Declaring that those two wounds were one continuous one without confirming it with dissection was EVIL; pure evil. 

But, my final point before referring you to Karen's article is this:

What if the hole in the windshield was a deliberate ruse? What if, to dissuade people from considering Umbrella Man as the source of the shot which hit JFK in the throat, they concocted the hole in the windshield story? 

Many people think that the throat shot was taken from the bridge over the Triple Underpass and that it went through the windshield.  Fetzer and company think that it was taken from a closet on the island between Main and Commerce streets. If you believe as I do that there was nothing accidental about the throat shot, that they were NOT trying to shoot him in the face or in the forehead, but the throat, how could anyone accomplish such a shot from that distance with such a small target? AND SHOOTING THROUGH GLASS NO LESS? 

I am reminded of the story of William Tell, who was sentenced to death, but he was told that if he could split an apple that was resting on his son's head, with his bow and arrow, that he would be reprieved. And the story goes that he did it.  

They did a stunt like that in the movie Mogambo, starring Clark Gable. In it, he was an African safaree guy who had to prove his courage to the natives by standing in front of a porous wall and letting them hurl spears super-close to his body. 

But, in real life, people don't take risks like that, and I doubt that any shooter would be confident about placing a bullet in Kennedy's throat from a great distance and shooting through glass. 

Now take a look at the Altgens photo, which is used as evidence of the bullet hole in the windsheild.

There is supposed to be a hole in the windshield there. Some say it is the lower white dot, while others say it is the higher white dot. I don't have a dog in that fight. But, what I will tell you is that the imagery of JFK and Jackie reacting to the throat shot there is false. It is fabricated. JFK wasn't hit in the throat yet in the Altgens photo. It was taken when the limo was high on the hill. The Altgens photo doesn't correspond to Z-255, as people claim. It corresponds to Z-189, which is when JFK was hit in the back. And that conforms with what Altgens said, that he snapped the shutter just as he heard the first shot. So, JFK would have been reacting to the back shot there, not the throat shot. So, they created that crude, phony imagery of him with the big fist and Jackie holding his arm like a vacuum wand. And the throat shot didn't happen yet. SO, EVEN IF YOU BELIEVE THAT HE WAS SHOT IN THE THROAT THROUGH THE GLASS, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN YET. Not at the time of the Altgens photo. And therefore, the bullet hole in the Altgens photo can't be real- whether you think it was the high one or the low one. 

Here now is the link to Karen Cleft's article.

https://assassinationofjfk.net/was-umbrella-man-a-shooter/

 If you have not read the testimony of Louie Steven Witt to the HSCA, you really should. He was the man who claimed to be Umbrella Man, and his testimony is NOT credible. Are you aware that he claimed to not know what happened? That he didn't know that the President was shot until he returned to work and found out? Yes, that's what he said. He also claimed not to know Dark Complected Man- at all. Even though they were sitting together snugly on the sidewalk, much closer together than strangers would ever sit, he said he didn't know him. 

 https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

And his whole story about going there with an umbrella to heckle Kennedy over his father's attempt to prevent WW2 is not credible. His expectation that Kennedy would see the umbrella and from seeing it realize that he was mocking Neville Chamberlain, and ipso facto, his father, is not credible. It was 1963. WW2 was long over, and the world had changed. Germany was no longer our enemy, and our former ally, the Soviet Union, was our enemy. The context of what was occurring that day was so far afield from 1939 that it's insane to think that JFK would see an umbrella and "connect the dots" to Munich, Germany, Neville Chamberlain and his own father. 

I wish I had read this long ago. I always believed the guy was a fraud, but now, I've got alarm bells going off in my head about him and the whole proceeding, including the involvement of Gerald Ford. 

So, you want proof that Kennedy was in trouble- impaired and incapacitated- before he was shot in the throat? Before what is usually considered to be the first shot that hit him? OK, I'll give it to you. 

Take a look at the Willis photo. It supposedly was taken before JFK was hit; right before he was hit. But, he isn't waving in that photo.

 

This was a political trip. Its purpose was to garner votes for the 1964 election; to win Texas. You saw how he was throughout the motorcade: smiling, waving, engaging, and Jackie too. But, he isn't doing any of that, and neither is Jackie. She is turned to her right, looking at him. Why isn't she working her side of the street? She knew that something was wrong with him. And notice that his image looks very sketchy. It isn't all that photographic. So, they may have taken out the paint. But regardless, he is not waving. His arm is down. 

We're told that he was about to be shot there, that this was a split-second before the Magic Bullet hit him. But, I tell you that he was already shot there- in the back- and what was coming was the throat shot. 

But, let's look at the image that came before this one, the Betzner photo.

If you look closely, you'll see that JFK was not waving there either. Note that I don't grant the authenticity of the man who looms large on the left side of the photo. I don't think anyone, amateur or professional, would take a photo like that when all they had to do was take a half step to the right to get around that guy. So, I suspect that he was added to the photo to keep us from seeing something. Perhaps it was Jackie showing interest and concern at a time when, supposedly, he wasn't shot yet. Let's take one step more back to the Croft photo.

This puts us just a little past the Obelisk. If you look at the man on the far right, he was just a few feet west of the Obelisk. 

Kennedy was already shot in the back there. They even put a screen over the spot where he was hit.

So, they put an oblong screen there. It must have caused a visible disruption when he was shot. Remember, the missile was made of ice, and it basically exploded upon hitting him. And here again, he wasn't waving. So, from right below the Obelisk, he stopped waving. In the Zapruder film, it looks like he put his hand over his face, but he didn't do that.

They did that. He was looking freaked out, and they wanted to cover it. But, getting back to Croft:

That image of Jackie's face is bogus. They took it from a televised video she made thanking Americans for their cards and letters of sympathy. 

Are you still doubting it? Look how dour she looks. Why? Supposedly, JFK hasn't been shot yet. Supposedly, nothing has happened yet. So, why isn't she smiling and waving like a good political wife? Most likely, even there, she sensed that something was wrong and was starting to turn towards him. They replaced that with what you see above. Why didn't they replace it with a picture of her smiling? Like this, for instance:

So, why didn't they use something like that, since, supposedly, nothing had happened yet? Isn't that how she should have looked? Well, the answer that you have to use what works, what fits. And by the way, that's how her hair was. It wasn't like we see in the Croft photo.

So, in the Croft photo, her hair is plastered down and had an unusual wave to it, almost a kink. On the right, which was the day of the assassination, her hair had a lot of body, and it was lying very differently.  That can't possibly be her on the same day. 

So, you should realize that when they foist the Croft photo on us, trying to pass that off as Jackie, they are shitting on us.

But, the most important thing is: why did they do it? They did it because JFK was shot in the back, and he rode down the hill that way. And then, when he finally passed the sign, he was shot a second time in the throat. 

Now, the shot to the back was NOT intended to be a kill shot. It was a preparatory shot. It was to butter him up. They did not want the killing to commence high on the hill because there were too many people up there watching. They didn't want so many eyes on it. They wanted it to happen down the hill, across from the pergola. That's where it was to start, and it would continue until he was dead. 

But, I don't believe the second shot was a kill shot either. I think it was another flechette. After all, no bullet was ever found in his throat. Dr. Perry fished around looking for it. He even cut the strap muscles to look for it. But, he never found it. And the x-rays they took of Kennedy certainly would have shown a metal bullet. No bullet was found in his back by the autopsy doctors, and no bullet was found in his throat by Dr. Perry. I don't think either one was a bullet. I think both were what Jack White called a "blood soluble round." 

So, they shot him in the back to deliver the nerve agent to disable him, physically and mentally. And they shot him in the throat, I believe, for two reasons. The first was to disable his speaking ability, and the second was to create a wound which they could later say was the exit wound for the shot in his back.  

And that's exactly what happened. Late that night, without dissecting the tracks of the back wound and the throat wound, they just announced that it was all one track from a single bullet. How could they know that without dissecting it? And why didn't they just dissect it? Well, they couldn't dissect it because it wasn't all one track. I don't know what Humes really thought, but the men above him were not going to let him go back and dissect those wounds. Insteady, they were just going to lip-flap it. Do it by fiat. "Yup. It's all one wound. You hear me?"

Now, I've given you proof that JFK stopped waving from Croft to Willis. He wasn't waving or engaging or interacting or whatever word you want to us. And that's because he was stricken. He was shot high on the hill with a nerve agent that acted fast, and it overwhelmed him. And Jackie, unwittingly, gave it away. She wasn't trying to be a trouble maker, but she was when she told the Warren Commission that when she first turned and looked at Jack, he had a "quizzical" look on his face. Interesting choice of word, but alternatively, she could have said confused, bewildered, or even unglued. But, that is what happened: he rode down the hill having been shot in the back with a nerve agent that quickly undermined him and progressively led to full-blown catatonia.  

 So, when Kennedy was shot in the back, high on the hill, why didn't he react? It was only a minor flesh wound. No vital damage was done. The physical trauma was trivial, and the mental impairment from that trauma was none. So, why didn't he do something when he knew that he was attacked and that more was coming? 

The weapon with which he was attacked was designed to feel like nothing more than a mosquito bite. CIA Director William Colby told us that. 

So, upon being shot, Kennedy had to know that something happened, but he didn't know what. All he knew was that he felt something weird; something hard to pinpoint; and that changes were happening inside him rapidly. He was rapidly feeling sick in a very strange way. It was overwhelming. It was totally unfamiliar to him, and it was frightening. The effect was sweeping and all-encompassing. 

Some of you are doctors, and you know that sometimes when a patient is extremely ill, he may completely internalize. He may utterly withdraw. He becomes completely possessed by what he is feeling. That's what was happening to JFK. 

And it was progressive. It was worsening by the second. His muscles were going into spasm, which was not only frightening, but painful. You know that the spasmodic pain from strychnine poisoning is said to be one of the worst pains there is. When Jane Stanford was in the throes of strychnine poisoning, she managed to get out that it was the worst pain she ever knew. 

For 60 years, the entire medical community has ignored the pathological state that Kennedy was in. I mean not just his physical trauma but his whole pathological condition, where his mind failed, and his ability to communicate failed, and his control of his muscles failed. It was bizarre, and we wouldn't know about it if not for the Zapruder film. 

And there is no way that the physical trauma he had received, to that point, caused it.  

He went from smiling and waving and being fully awake, aware, cognizant, and responsive to being catatonic. Again, the physical trauma he had received to that point could not have caused it. 

He wasn't just hurt; he was sick. And we, the doctors of the world, can help him. We can help him get justice. All it takes is to properly diagnose him.  

 Dee McFarlane

They never even told Oswald that he was even a suspect in the death of the president. His reaction when told he HAD BEEN CHARGED with the president's death is priceless. His midnight press conference was OVER 2 seconds after reporters revealed to Lee that the DPD was railroading him and the world in what can only be described as complicity in the murder of the president and a willful and deliberate obstruction of justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hAgBBwYwUQ

YOUTUBE.COM

Oswald's Midnight Press Conference

Oswald's Midnight Press Conference

• 1d
• Like
• Reply
• Share

Active

Ralph Cinque

Author

Admin

Dee McFarlane That's a really good point, Dee. If he didn't know he was being charged, what exactly did they discuss about it? Did they discuss it at all? We know that Fritz wrote down that Oswald said he was standing outside with Bill Shelley in the entranceway. So, they must have asked him where he was during the shooting, and he told them. But, did they do that without revealing to him that they believed he was up on the 6th floor shooting at Kennedy? I never saw Lenny Briscoe do that with a suspect on Law and Order.

 Isn't it amazing that Afghanistan has fallen completely off the radar and the map? It's as though that 20 year war never happened. Either that, or that it happened so long ago, like a century ago, that it's ancient history. 

It was a war chosen and started by the United States. We crossed an ocean and two seas to get to Afghanistan to attack them. And we did it based solely on accusations that the Taliban was involved in 9/11. No evidence, let alone proof, for this was ever put forward, except that they did let Osama bin laden live and operate in their country. But remember that Osama bin laden fought to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. He brought men, supplies, and money. It was long before 9/11, and it is understandable that they would let him be a "guest" in their country. And remember that at the time, he was an ally of the United States. We wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan too.

I'm not going to discuss the claim that bin laden organized 9/11, but regardless, there is no evidence that the Taliban sanctioned any attacks against any country ever. Without providing any evidence against bin laden, the Bush administration demanded that the Taliban arrest him and turn him over to them. First, they responded by requesting to see the evidence against bin laden, and Bush refused. Then, in order to prevent a war, they offered to take custody of him and turn him over to a third country, for trial, presumably one that had good relations with both the U.S. and Afghanistan. Bush refused that too. 

And then came the war and the speedy collapse and flight of the Taliban government. But actually, they just fled Kabul. And the organization and structures they had established to administer the country continued. Basically, all of rural Afghanistan, which is most of Afghanistan, remained under Taliban control. And then, they organized their fighters to fight the U.S. and its NATO allies in Afghanistan. 

And what happened after that should go down in the annals of military history as one of the most amazing military campaigns ever. Because: without a Navy or an Air Force, and with no modern Army either, they defeated the U.S. and NATO and drove them out of their country. It took 20 years, but Afghans are famous for their patience and perseverence.  

But, what assessment has there been in the U.S. for the 20 year debacle of the Afghan War? None. Who has been held to account? Who has been held responsible? And note that it should start with George W. Bush because he is the one who launched the war. But, nothing has happened to him or to anyone else. 

There have been some books, and here's one:

https://www.amazon.com/Afghanistan-Papers-Secret-History-War/dp/1982159006

I haven't read it. I get the title, The Afghanistan Papers, which was modeled after the Pentagon Papers. But, it was written by a reporter. What official inquest has there been? How do you fight and lose a  20 year war, with nearly 3600 American and NATO deaths (which doesn't include private military contractors killed) and over 20,000 injured, many of them severely, catastrophically, and permanently, without examining how it all happened? Is the U.S. ever going to do it? I don't think so. I think they are as likely to do it as they are to count the gold in Ft. Knox. 

First is the fact that we started the war based on lies. That, in itself, rules out having an investigation. Second is the fact that we fought the war in violation of the Geneva Conventions. For example, we bombed 9 wedding parties in which we knowingly killed men,  women, and children in the hope that the death toll included Taliban fighters. Even if it did, it didn't give us the right to kill civilians. After each attack, we apologized for the loss of civilian lives, but then, we kept doing it, again and again. Do you think anyone wants to put that under a microscope? So, there isn't going to be an investigation of the disastrous Afghanistan War. 

But, what do you say to the American families who lost loved ones? Or to the U.S. veteran who lose three limbs? What was it for? Is there any way to rationalize it as defending freedom? No, there is not. 

But, the worst thing of all is that nothing was learned. The danger that we could do it all again- repeat it- is very real. Right now, there is talk about war with Iran. U.S. bravado survived the war unscathed, but if we couldn't beat the ragtag Taliban in 20 years, how could we possibly beat Iran? Where would the manpower come to do it? And what if they instituted a draft to man a war against Iran? How do you think draft-age American men would respond? 

The truth is that a thorough, candid, and detailed investigation of the Afghanistan War would be good for this country. But, it's not going to happen, and it's precisely because of what we did. They are just going to let it vanish from the national consciousness and give it no more reflection than the Spanish-American War. The American families who suffered grievously from the war will just have to suffer in silence. And the same goes for the Afghan families.