Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

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/