This concerns Umbrella Man and the happenstance about his presence in the Kill Zone, as well as the happenstance about Louie Steven Witt testifying to the HSCA.
But first, I need to inform you that I have doubts about the authenticity of some of the post-assassination photos because some of them look staged to me. Take this one:
So the Newmans are still on the ground. Seems odd when others were walking around. Still afraid of being shot, were they? And clustered around them there were 4 photographers, all in suits? Seems a bit much. The one on the left closest to the Newmans looks like James Altgens, but was he there then? I thought he rushed off to the Dallas Morning News to get his film developed, so that Altgens6 could hit the wires at 1:00. On the left is a motorcycle cop, and it doesn't look like he's moving. There isn't the slightest sense that that front wheel is turning. It looks like he's just sitting there posing. Then on the right, there's Umbrella Man and Dark Complected Man sitting. And behind them is the Stemmons Freeway sign, but it looks weird. It seems to be leaning forward. Notice that the street-light looks perfectly vertical, but in comparison to it, the freeway sign seems to be tilted forward. And notice that it looks much wider at the base and narrower at the top. And it appears to be too small. Compare it to this:
Now, let's add the other one:
Are you buying it that those two signs are the same sign? I'm not, and that's because I took high school Geometry, and they're not even the same shape. The one on the left is practically square, that is, it's about as wide as it is tall. The one on the right is clearly very oblong. So, they can't possibly be the same sign.
So, what is going on with this photo?
In all the other images, Umbrella Man wore his umbrella and a hat. This is the only image showing his face. The HSCA claimed to use "enhanced photographic techniques" to come up with this:
Actually, it's not the exact same image. In the image I showed you, he wasn't looking at the camera. So, where did this image come from, and why can't I find it online? And I mean the whole image.
It definitely was similar to the other image, meaning, a wide angle shot, as we say in the film industry, which means this had to be an extreme blow-up. And we know what happens when you blow images up. Robert Blakey, the head of the HSCA, himself, admitted that the Umbrella Man was very tiny in the image and "unrecognizable." His words. And that's when he claimed that they used "advanced photographic techniques" to blow him up clearly enough to be identified.
But, you've got to remember that detail is either present in an image or it isn't. So, when an unrecognizable image is blown up to one that is recognizable, data has to be added. They don't bring data out; they put data in. This was the 1970s, and I don't know how far along digital photographic enhancements were. They definitely didn't have Photoshop.
But, Blakey claimed that, somehow, the Committee came up with that close-up of UM's face. Then, he claimed that the Committee released the image to the press asking people to come forward if they could recognize the man. And supposedly, someone did, although they didn't say who that person was. And that, supposedly, is how they found Louie Steven Witt.
So, he didn't come to them; they went to him. That's the story. But, are you buying it? It's the same story they told about Babushka Lady, that the Dallas Police ran ads asking people to identify her, but no one did.
But, since it started with a suspicious image that contains a phony freeway sign, I smell a rat. It's all too convenient for me.
Below, on the left is a third image of Umbrella Man's face, and on the right is Louie Witt. Yeah, I see the resemblance, but it's way to good. Fifteen years had passed. And his hair was the exact same length and same style? If I see photos of myself that are fifteen months apart, my hair looks quite different. Plus, no balding and no receding in 15 years? It's possible, but is it likely?
So, let's go through Witt's testimony. He said that he was working at the Rio Grande Insurance company, and that, as he often did, he went out for a walk at lunch that day. But wait. Continuing, he said that he brought his umbrella to heckle the President, but that means he wasn't going out for a walk; he was going out to heckle the President. It was one or the other. You can't conflate those two things.
So then, to smooth it out, he said that at a coffee break earlier, someone said that "the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family." Are you buying that? I'm not. I don't believe for one second that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. I don't think the Kennedys gave any more thought to umbrellas than any other family.
So, he left work, at lunch time, to go out to heckle the President, but he said he didn't know the motorcade route. He had heard about the motorcade, but he didn't know the route. Yet, we're supposed to believe, without a shred of evidence, that Lee Harvey Oswald knew the route.
So, he got to Main Street, but it was very crowded, and not wanting to draw attention to himself, he decided that he would rather heckle the President in a less crowded spot. So, he walked down Main to Houston, and then north on Houston to Elm, and then left on Elm. And then, he walked down Elm to the Grassy Knoll area precisely because it was unpopulated.
Then, he made an incredible statement. He said that he didn't know that the motorcade had arrived until the limo was coming down Elm Street and approaching him. But, he knew it would be coming down Main and then turning right on Houston and then left on Elm BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HE DID, HIMSELF. So, how could he not be focused on that? He was standing there waiting, so wouldn't he have spotted the motorcade as soon as it reached Main and Houston? And what about the the lead motorcycles and the lead cars Didn't he see them? So, you see, his story wasn't very credible. But, of course the HSCA guys didn't call him on it. They were out to affirm what he was saying.
But, once he saw that the President was coming, he said he started fiddling with the umbrella, trying to get it open. as he walked closer to the street, so that he could heckle the President. And he said that he only knew that umbrellas were a sore spot with the Kennedys and that it had something to do with what the father did in England. He never mentioned Neville Chamberlain, and it seemed that he didn't know anything him. However, Chamberlain was the one who carried an umbrella, not Joseph Kennedy.
So, we are supposed to believe that all he knew was that umbrellas were a sore spot with the Kennedys and that he was going to heckle the President by brandishing one. Are you buying that?
Then, he said that while still on the grass, he was walking towards the street, when he heard the sounds that he "eventually" found out were gun shots. He had no thought that they were shots at the time. Then, as he continued to move forward, he finally got the umbrella up in the air, to where he could see again. That was after the shots. But, here is the Willis photo which was taken right before the throat shot. You know that it is my contention that Kennedy was hit in the back high on the hill long before the throat shot, but we'll put that aside for now.
So, Witt claimed that because there were several seconds in which the umbrella was being opened in front of his face, that he didn't see the shooting at all. And by the time his visual field was restored, Clint Hill was making his move to the limo, etc. Then, he said he sat down at the curb at the edge of the grass. He denied knowing Dark Complected Man, but, I find that strange. Why would they sit so close together if they didn't know each other?
That is not what strangers do, especially when there was a lot of space, as there was. Strangers keep their distance. They don't snug up to someone they don't know. It's considered intrusive to do so. Then he identified this guy as himself in the picture with the phony sign.
Then, he said that he sat there for several minutes and then got up and walked back to work. Then, it was at work that he found out that the President had been shot. So, he experienced the whole thing without knowing Kennedy had been shot. Are you buying that? It is totally non-credible. He even said that while sitting there he heard two people say that the President had been shot. Here's what he said. Read it yourself:
So, he heard two people talking about killing, and yet, he claimed not to know that the President had been shot until he returned to work? Unbelievable.
After that, he denied that he was signaler in the assassination, and he denied that his umbrella was a weapon. He was asked if he brought the umbrella to work that morning, or if it was already there, and he said he couldn't remember.
Then, it went back to his purpose in leaving work: was it to take a walk or to heckle the President, and he insisted it was both. He claimed to take the umbrella along just to heckle the President, even though he didn't know the motorcade route- just in case he ran into it. Then, he claimed to hear at coffee breaks that some members of the Kennedy family were once heckled at an airport in Arizona by people with umbrellas. I did a search about that and found nothing. And again, it makes no sense whatsoever that Kennedys would see umbrellas and connect it to their father. Really, it's just bull shit.
There were multiple questioners who repeated the questions, so he had to tell his story over and over. So, when Mr. Fauntroy was questioning him, Witt said again that he didn't realize the motorcade had arrived until the limo was coming down Elm Street. So, he said that he got up from sitting and started walking towards the street. But, that would mean he was sitting in the grass. There was no place else to sit. Look at it:
This was later, but you can see what was there. That curb between the sidewalk and the grass was the only place to sit. So, how could he be sitting and then move across the grass to get to the street? It would mean that he was sitting in the grass, and I don't believe fucking it. Do you?
Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we venture to deceive.
So then, he repeated the story of missing the action because he had the umbrella opening up in front of him, blocking his view, and by the time his vision was restored, Clint Hill was climbing aboard the limo. Then, he claimed that Dark Complected Man said repeatedly, "They done shot them folks." Then the female behind him said, "They have shot those people. They shot those people." This was while he was sitting there, but notice in the image above that there was no woman behind him. So, what happened to her?
So then, he admits to realizing at the time that "something terrible had happened." But, he didn't know what? How could he not know when people were telling him that people were shot? He had the nerve to say that he didn't know that the President had been killed or even shot, but he knew that something terrible had happened. But, what other "something" could it have been?
Then, he said that he knew that the HSCA had published appeals looking for him, and he saw one such appeal one day when he was wrapping something with newspaper, and it just happened to contain the appeal.
What the mother folk? He took newspapers to work to wrap small parts? He worked for an insurance company! So, what would he be wrapping? And as he was doing that, he just happened to notice a picture of himself in the newspaper that he was using to wrap the small parts? Try to imagine that happening to you. You're using a newspaper in a utilitarian way to wrap small parts, and then you casually notice that you're in the newspaper that you're handling. What are the freakin' odds of that?
But then, he didn't come forward even though he knew they were looking for him. You'd think they would have chastised him for that, but they didn't.
Then, he changed his story again. Previously, he said he wasn't sure if he brought the umbrella from home or kept it at work. But then, the story became that there were a bunch of umbrellas and raincoats at work for anyone's use. And since he just returned it to the rack and left it there, someone else could have used it.
Then, it came out that he consented to testify on the stipulation that he would not have to demonstrate how he handled the umbrella and what he did with it. In other words, the struggling that he did to get it open, he wouldn't demonstrate that. But, why would they agree to it? They had supoened him. They didn't have to agree to any terms. You'll come and you'll show us whatever the hell we ask you to show us. But, he said it would be embarrassing to him, so they let him off the hook. Nice of them.
However, Chairman Stokes wanted to make sure that the umbrella that Witt brought didn't have a gun built into it. So, he had someone else open up the umbrella to demonstrate that. But, that is ridiculous because, obviously, Witt wasn't going to bring an umbrella with a gun in it. So, if Witt been a gunman using his umbrella, all he had to do was show up with a different umbrella. Did that not occur to Stokes? Did he really think he was establishing something about 11/22/63 by showing that this umbrella in 1978 had no gun?
Witt said that one of his "good friends" informed the press that he was Umbrella Man. But, wouldn't a good friend go to him before going to anyone else? So, he couldn't have been that good a friend. And the HSCA had requested that informants come to them- not to the press. So, why didn't his good friend do that?
Then he demonstrated what he heard of the shots by rappnig his knuckles on the table rapidly in succession. So, he heard shots but didn't know they were shots? Did he consider at the time that they were shots, or that they might be shots? He wouldn't concede that.
Then, there was an interesting question from a Mr. Devine who actually brought up Neville Chamberlain.
Then, Witt said that he had so many umbrellas that he didn't use this one very often because it was big and cumbersome. So, that explained why it was in such good shape after 15 years.
When asked how many umbrellas he owned, he said he had no idea. HOW COULD THAT BE TRUE? HOW COULD SOMEONE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY UMBRELLAS THEY OWN?
And then he was asked if he could have brought the wrong umbrella, and he said it was possible but unlikely because of how large and clumsy it was.
Witt was hilarious. I'm laughing out loud here. It's like the guy hoarded umbrellas.
Note that Witt denied knowing that Umbrella Man was a person of interest in the case. And besides denying that he knew Dark Complected Man, he claimed to be unaware that he had a two-way radio. But, here is Dark Complected Man talking on the radio with Umbrella Man looking at him.
And that's about the whole of his interminal grueling testimony. And I don't mean grueling to him but grueling to me for having to wade through it.
So, what's the bottom line about Umbrella Man? I don't think he was Witt. I don't think there is anything credible about Witt's entire story. And remember, he claimed to know nothing about Neville Chamberlain, just that the Kennedys were offended by the sight of umbrellas for some vague reason relating to their father, and that is such bull shit. Witt never claimed to be a World War 2 buff. He provided no credible reason for why he would want to hassle Kennedy. He kept emphasizing what a private person he was and not wanting attention. And yet he went out hoping to have a personal, one on one, confrontation with the President of the United States?
To me, there is no question that Umbrella Man, whoever he really was, was involved in the assassination. But, was he a signaller or a shooter? I think he was a shooter. I'm not going to swear by it, but it's an either/or situation, and I think it's more likely he was a shooter. Why? Because there is solid evidence that there really was an umbrella gun. Read it yourself. It's the testimony of Charles Senseney.
And Senseney, unlike Witt, was a straight talker and a very credible witness. The CIA really did hire him to develop an umbrella gun, and it was operational. He said it could knock out a junkyard dog in 2 seconds. I believe Senseney.
So, since the umbrella gun existed, it would be a strange and unlikely coincidence if Umbrella Man also used an umbrella as a signalling device. Signalling could have been done much more discreetly and subtly without an umbrella.
I don't believe in coincidences, especially when it comes to the JFK assassination. Since the CIA definitely had an umbrella gun in 1963, I say that's what the Umbrella Man had: an umbrella gun.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.