Jump to content


Photo

Umbrella Man and The Two Altered Photos

umbrella man conspiracy cover-up black dog man stemmons alteration willis betzner steven witt flechette

  • Please log in to reply
41 replies to this topic

#1 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 31 July 2014 - 09:04 PM

Author's note:  An updated and revised version of this topic has been posted on the main website: 

 

http://assassination...-man-a-shooter/

 

 

 

 

From what I’ve been reading in other threads, it seems that a few people believe Umbrella Man (UM) really was the Steven Witt heckler, while most others believe him to be a signal man of some sort.  In this thread, I submit the theory that UM was not a heckler and was more than a signal man.  This is based on information I found in two altered photos. 

 

I’ll start by pointing out the photo alterations, and then get into the theories I formulated as a result of seeing them.  Let’s start with the key change that proves the photos were modified.

 

In 1963, the Stemmons Freeway (SF) sign had two small signs attached to its left leg: 

  • A rectangular sign on top saying NORTH
  • A badge-shaped sign below saying TEXAS U.S. 77 

The signs were definitely attached to the leg on November 22, 1963.

 

um01.png

 

But when you enlarge the Willis 5 (W5) photo, the signs aren’t there.  In fact, the entire left leg of the SF sign is missing.  The white vertical line that gives the illusion of being the left leg is actually the antenna of a DPD motorcycle.  Notice how it extends above the bottom of the sign and is also too far to the left.  The real leg would be below the “K” in “KEEP.”

 

The two small signs are not entirely missing, though.  Some remaining artifacts, where portions of the signs were erased, are visible just below the SF sign and to the right of the antenna.  The gap between the signs can also be seen. 

 

um02.png

 

The reason the leg and some portions of the signs are absent (and the remaining portions erased) is clearly due to the fact that something was in front of the sign originally, blocking the view of these items, but that object has now been moved somewhere else.  That object was, of course, Umbrella Man.

 

Phil Willis said he snapped his picture when he was startled by the sound of the first shot.  Charles Bronson said he snapped his picture for the same reason, at the sound of the first shot.  So the Willis and Bronson photos should have been taken at the exact same, or nearly the same, instant.

 

We know from the Bronson picture, as well as from the Z-film and eyewitness accounts that at this point in time UM was standing in front of the sign with a raised umbrella.  But in W5, he has been moved behind the sign with a lowered umbrella.

 

um03.png

 

There are other alterations in this photo that I will discuss later in the post, but for now I’d like to point out just one more thing.  In the Willis photo there is a piece of the umbrella on the right side (as we look at it) that is darker than the rest.  It looks as if it has been added to the photo.  Keep that in mind as we move on to look at Betzner’s picture, taken a few moments earlier.

 

um04.png

 

Betzner 3 (B3) is also missing the left leg of the SF sign as well as the two small signs attached to it.  Once again artifacts have been left behind from where the visible portions of the signs were erased.   There is one portion of the bottom sign they forgot, or didn’t bother to erase, however.  When enlarged, “77” can be seen essentially floating in air.

 

Although we don’t see UM at all and only part of his umbrella, we can still determine that similar edits were made to B3.  UM is again behind the sign with umbrella lowered.  And just as with W5, the right corner of his umbrella is darker than the rest of it and looks as if it has been added to the picture.

 

um05.png

 

So far the modifications have been pretty consistent, but there are other alterations that are inconsistent between the two pictures.

  • In W5, there are three boys under the sign and the brunette is the tallest.  In B3, there are only two boys and the blond is taller.  They also seem to be farther away.
  • In W5, there is one woman standing in front of the right leg of the SF sign.  In B3, she is a few feet behind the leg and a different woman is in front of the leg.
  • In W5, the SF sign is straight.  In B3, it is slanted even though Zapruder’s pedestal is roughly horizontal in both.

As for how the pictures got this way, Betzner gave his camera to authorities before the film was developed.  The authorities gave him back the camera and most of the negatives except for a few they were “interested” in.  This means Betzner never saw nor had control of the original negative.  Presumably, this was the picture he received back from authorities when they were done “reviewing” it.

 

The Willis provenance has been harder to trace.  I know he took the film to a Kodak lab himself, but whether it was knowingly or unknowing intercepted by authorities before he saw the developed slide, I do not know.  The fact that he considered the slide to be original and put his copyright on it, I can only assume that he was unaware of the alterations and probably never saw the original slide, or didn’t see it long enough to notice the changes.

 

um06.png

 

 

SO WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

Everything I’ve discussed so far is factual, or at least self-evident.  Now I will present my interpretation of why these changes were made.

 

Clearly, the editors of these two pictures wanted UM hidden.  It wasn’t enough to merely lower the umbrella and leave him where he was.  They went to the additional effort of moving him behind the sign. 

 

To hide him even further, they moved other bystanders closer to him so he wouldn’t be standing alone, and they put him off to the side so as not to be in the center of the group.  In the Betzner photo, they may have even gone so far as to move the man in the extreme foreground to hide UM entirely.  His placement is incredibly convenient, and it almost looks like the floating “77” in the background is on top of his sleeve in the foreground.

 

But these changes also put the pictures at great risk of being discovered for their alterations. Compare these pictures to each other or to other pictures from the time and the edits become readily apparent.

 

So why did they go to so much effort and risk to hide UM?  I believe the answer lies in that corner piece of the umbrella that had to be added to both pictures.

 

um07.png

 

If we can trust the Z-film on this point, the side of the umbrella with the added patch would have been in front of the SF sign.  In both photos, there is nothing that obstructs our view of the SF sign.  Therefore, there shouldn’t have been anything blocking that side of the umbrella either.  Yet, in both shots, it looks as if a patch has been created and placed on the same part of the umbrella.  Why?

 

Many people have balked, and even outright laughed, at the idea of this umbrella being a flechette-firing model, but I think we must give it serious consideration.  It’s entirely possible that the patch is there to hide part of a firing mechanism, or to replace a piece of the surface that was removed to accommodate the mechanism.

 

To add further weight to this hypothesis, in November 2013 one of the Parkland nurses spoke for the first time about something she saw in the ER on the day of the assassination.  Phyllis Hall, the very first nurse to enter Trauma Room 1, said that while she was cradling the president’s head, she saw a bullet in JFK’s neck. 

"I could see a bullet lodged between his ear and his shoulder," she said. "It was pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage. There was no blunting of the bullet or scarring around the shell from where it had been fired."

 

"I'd had a great deal of experience working with gunshot wounds, but I had never seen anything like this before. It was about one-and-a-half inches long - nothing like the bullets that were later produced.  It was taken away but never have I seen it presented in evidence or heard what happened to it.  It remains a mystery.”

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jfk-mystery-bullet-lodged-body-nurse-article-1.1512283

 

 

um08.png

 

Phyllis’s description of the bullet sounds very much like a flechette, and JFK did have a neck wound in that location.  In 1989, Tom Wilson, an electrical engineer and photonics expert, used special photo analysis equipment to examine the autopsy photos in 3D.  He determined that the small defect in the neck was an actual wound.

 

Researchers have long suspected that JFK was paralyzed in some way due to his lack of movement and lack of speech, especially when compared to the extensive movements and vocalizations of Gov. Connally.

 

 

SUMMATION

First and foremost, UM was not a heckler.  I cannot envision any possible reason for conspirators to grab the film from Willis, Betzner, and others, rush it to a lab, spend hours surreptitiously editing it, risking exposure of the conspiracy, merely to keep the American public from seeing Mr. Witt standing on the sidewalk with a raised umbrella.

 

Second, UM was not a signal man.  The people who planned the assassination were clever and, presumably, experienced at being discreet and inconspicuous during a covert operation.  Dark Complected Man’s signal was discreet:  step into the street, raise a hand to wave, make a fist, step back onto the curb.  Hardly anyone notices.  UM’s movements were so conspicuous that films and photos had to be confiscated and secretly edited to remove his activities.  These were not the actions of someone trying to send a clandestine signal.  Everyone in the vicinity saw what he was doing – they couldn’t miss it -- and that may be why the theory persists to this day that he was a signal man.  DCM was the signaler – UM had a different role.

 

Unless I am overlooking another possibility, I think UM had to be a shooter.  The most plausible scenario, IMO, is that he fired a flechette or dart containing a paralytic poison into the president’s neck as his limo approached the Stemmons Freeway sign.  DCM signaled to the rifle team that the payload (paralytic) had been delivered, and signaled to Greer to stop the car so the turkey-shoot could commence.  DCM’s signal was either picked up by the spotters with each shooter, or by a coordinator who was in radio contact with all shooters.

 

 

THE RISKS – IN DETAIL

As I mentioned earlier, UM’s actions and the subsequent cover-up of those actions were very risky to the conspirators.  His role, therefore, must have been suitably important to warrant those risks.  Let’s examine some of them in detail:

 

  • Drawing attention to himself, he opened a large umbrella on a sunny day.  He drew further attention by pumping it several times, raising it above his head, and twirling it.
  • In addition to being seen by eyewitnesses, these actions were caught on film and in photos, all of which had to be collected and edited.  What would have happened if they had missed some?  They did miss one picture (Bronson), which gave us visual confirmation of what the witnesses had said.
  • The edits in the Willis and Betzner pictures were also at tremendous risk of being discovered.  Unlike the Z-film, which required special knowledge and/or special equipment to detect its alterations, any layperson can easily see the modifications in these two pictures.  Even if someone was unfamiliar with the SF sign, just comparing the pictures to each other would show obvious differences. 
  • Anyone seeing those edits would have proof-positive of a conspiracy and cover-up.  LHO could not possibly have edited the pictures, nor would he have any reason to.  The fact that the photos were edited = cover-up.  The fact they concealed the actions of someone other than LHO = conspiracy.  Betzner (for sure) and Willis (probably) gave their film to authorities and received them back in this condition.  The fact that there was no one else who could have altered the photos except the authorities = government conspiracy

 

Consequently, the mission carried out by UM must have been so crucial to the operation as to be worth all those risks, including potential exposure of the conspiracy and its cover-up.  What could have been worth all of that? 

 

Unless I’m overlooking another option, I think it would have to be the paralyzing of JFK.  He simply could not be allowed to duck out of the way of the coming onslaught.  Therefore, they were willing to do whatever it took to fire the flechette no matter how conspicuous, and to cover their tracks afterward no matter how risky.  It may have been the lynchpin to the entire assassination plot.

 

 

RED HERRINGS

Realizing the great risk they were facing from the altered photos of Willis and Betzner, the conspirators did employ a few tactics to minimize the risk.

 

um09.png

 

At the time of editing, they added a mysterious element to the photos to divert attention away from UM and the alterations.  Black Dog Man only conclusively appears in these two photos, which we know now to be heavily altered.  And the shape appears to be a 2-dimensional nondescript blob that lacks depth, shading, and texture – in other words, an artificial element that was added to the picture.  He’s also a significantly different size in each photo when other objects (people, SF sign, concrete wall) are essentially the same size in each picture.

 

The hypothesis that BDM was added as a diversion is further aided by the fact that when Life magazine first published these photos in 1967, they went to great lengths to point out the figure to their readers.  They confirmed that Itek verified it as a man, explained why he didn’t appear in other pictures (which was a clever touch), and reassured us that he was most likely just an onlooker.  Nearly 40% of the narrative on the page was focused on BDM.  Why so much print about one innocent onlooker if he wasn’t a diversionary tactic?  (There was not one word about UM.)

 

Twelve years after the publication in Life, the conspirators were still so concerned about UM being found out that they went to the unprecedented lengths of fabricating the Steven Witt character and having him put on a theatrical performance for the HSCA to help dispel the growing mystery around UM.

 

Umbrella Man was taken completely out of public discussion in 2011 when the New York Times, Errol Morris, and Josiah Thompson created a “documentary” puff-piece claiming that Witt’s story was just so crazy that it must be true.  That was all the “evidence” Mainstream Media needed to close the books on UM for good.

 

 

EPITAPH

The truly sad thing is that if BDM was a diversion, it worked brilliantly.  For nearly 50 years, most people who look at and discuss these two pictures focus on BDM.  I find very little evidence that assassination researchers know the full extent of the alterations to these two photos or that UM was moved from front to back. 

 

So ultimately, my reasons for presenting this lengthy dissertation were:

  • To bring the photo alterations to light for anyone who was unaware of them
  • To refute the allegations that UM was a heckler – he was, without any doubt, part of the conspiracy
  • To give credence to the theory of UM being a shooter
  • To cast (additional) doubt on the existence of BDM
  • To invite other well-reasoned interpretations of the physical evidence
  • To encourage new investigation into these photos and any others that seem suspect (i.e., not just rehashing the same theories, but looking at photos and film with a fresh perspective) – there may still be many things to find in them

 

Thank you for your indulgence.


"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#2 Phil Dragoo

Phil Dragoo

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 02:08 AM

Karen, there had been a statement by one of the Secret Service agents that the president exclaimed, "I've been hit," or words to that effect.

 

I have always dismissed this as as much of a lie as that the president had insisted agents not ride the back of the limousine.

 

The president I am certain said not a word.  I had always thought it was because of the throat wound.

 

Malcolm Perry publicly described it as entry.  Other doctors concurred.  Anthony DeFiore concludes after lengthy analysis it came from the South Knoll at Z-225.

 

Elsewhere I presented my diagram tracing the throat wound through a/the hole in the windshield (said defect measured in a Commission exhibit) at Z-225 tracing to the Terminal Annex lot.

 

I have the Phillips book on Tom Wilson's work.  It is of note he describes a secondary wound per the diagram you reproduce above.

 

Others found it fashionable to lampoon his work.  I find it credible: he was employed by steel makers, not seen to be frivolous.

 

CIA Technical Services had such a weapon.  Richard E. Sprague in the Appendix to his The Taking of America 1-2-3 refers to the Umbrella Man as (not Witt) likely Gordon Novel--just what an evil person was he may be seen in DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition.

 

One researcher called up Novel to accuse him of being Umbrella Man.  Novel said he'd kill him if he called again, and the researcher's daughter soon returned from school with the tale of the nice man who wanted Daddy to know he knew the route the daughter took.

 

I don't insist upon the use of the flechette--but it would explain the rigid unresponsiveness (save for the hands rising).  I reject the nervous reaction or the back brace.  It was either the shot in the throat which led to Custer's missing C-3/4 x-ray with metal fragments or the flechette.

 

Reading the Blowing Up Russia of the late polonium-victim Alexander Litvinenko I stipluate such murders are not of Q in the Bond films but of all nations' technical services.

 

From Richard E. Sprague, several excerpts pertaining to the subject you discuss:

 

Exhibit D
____________________________________________________________

    
    
                               193 Pinewood Road
                               Hartsdale, NY  10530
    
                               April 5, 1978
    
    
Representative Louis Stokes
U.S. House of Representatives
Raybur House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Louis,

Thank you for your most reassuring letter of March 16, 1978.
As you know I have great faith in your own personal integrity
and your goals as discussed with you at lunch nearly a year
ago.  I understand the necessity for non disclosure and
sensitive discretion in the way the Select Committee is pro-
ceeding.  I believe I understand it more than most researchers
because of my close working relationship with the staff and the
committee ever since it started.

You can rest assured that it is my intention to continue to
assist you and to support your efforts right up to the finish
line.  I want to avoid as much as you do any exploitation of my
relationship to the committee that would cause problems for you
or for me, especially with the media.

In this regard, the press release you mentioned in your letter
from Gallery magazine was initially prepared by their public
relations department, and included a statement taht I am a
consultant to the Select Committee.  I asked them to delete the
statement and they insisted on retaining something about my
assistance to the committee in order to help establish my
credibility with their readers.  After some discussion I was
able to get them to modify the statement to apply to the past
work for Richard A. Sprague and Henry Gonzalez.

There will be another article in the June 1978 issue using this
same statement.  I believe I mentioned the article to you several
months ago.  It is about the CIA weapon system developed by
Charles Senseney at Fort Detrick, Maryland using rocket propelled
flechettes carrying paralyzing poison launched by an umbrella.
I described in the article the evidence pointing toward the use
of this weapons system in Dealey Plaza.  The article will appear
on May 2 on the newsstands.

I read your March 16 letter, on March 22, upon my return from a
trip to Japan and a vacation.  I contacted Gallery asking them to
delete entirely the statement about me and the Select Committee.
They told me it was too late, that the issue had already gone to
press.  However, they did agree to delete the statement from any


[the remainder of this letter was missing from the copy of the
  edition used to make this on-line version.  --ratitor]

 

~~~

 

Exhibit I
____________________________________________________________

      
      
  
  
                                          193 Pinewood Road
                                          Hartsdale, NY  10530
  
                                          November 24, 1978
  
  
  
  
   Representative Louis Stokes
   Select Committee on Assassinations
   U.S. House of Representatives
   3369 House Office Building, Annex 2
   Washington, D.C.  20515
  
   Dear Louis:

 

[Here follows the pertinent paragraphs]

 

As I have had told you in previous letters, the reason you
   must call Novel is that there is a very strong possibility
   that he is the umbrella man.  If you laugh at that and try
   to tell me that you found the umbrella man, Mr. Witt, I'll
   laugh right back at you and tell you that farce you put on
   for the American public didn't fool anyone with his eyes
   even half way open.  In addition to the obviously planned
   sequence of events and the way in which Mr. Witt surfaced,
   his umbrella was certainly not the one used in Dealey Plaza.
   It was the wrong size, had the wrong number of ribs, and was
   missing the two round white bulbs on either end when folded
   up.
  
   No, Louis, Mr. Witt was either planted upon you or else
   your staff planted him.  I'll give you the benefit of the
   doubt for the moment and assume that you do not know he
   was a plant.  If you let it go as is, you and Mr. Preyer
   and the rest of the committee are going to look pretty
   silly.
  
   You absolutely must call as witnesses, Gorden Novel, and
   at the other end, Charles Sensenay and the CIA people asso-
   ciated with Fort Detrick, Maryland, where that umbrella
   launching system was made.  Incidentally, two Bulgarian
   intelligence agents have recently been assassinated in
   England with an umbrella weapon using poison flechettes,
   very similar to the one used on JFK.

 

~~~

Exhibit L
____________________________________________________________

 

193 Pinewood Road
                                              Hartsdale, NY  10530
   
                                              August 3, 1978
   
   
Mr. Robert Blakey
Select Committee on Assassinations
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.  20515

Dear Bob:

Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday August 1,
I checked with Bob Cutler, my co-author on the Umbrella
Weapon System article in Gallery June 1978.  Bob told me
he left with Mr. Preyer and with you, photographic material
showing that The Umbrella Man (TUM) was quite probably
J. Gordon Novel.

Your news photo of him reinforces that belief for both of
us.  I did not have that portion of the Couch film from
WFAA and so had never seen TUM's face as clearly as it
appears there.  The Bothun photo of him has a light
reflection around his nose, as I'm sure you know.

We have a 1962-3 photo of Novel taken from the same angle
as the Couch, film of TUM and a photo comparison convinces
us more than ever that Novel is TUM.  Mr. Preyer no doubt
told you back in April that Novel is in a jail in Georgia,
framed for a crime he and Jim Garrison, his former lawyer,
both claim he didn't commit.


                                Best regards,



                                Dick Sprague

 

 



#3 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 01 August 2014 - 03:17 AM

Thank you Phil.  I too disregard Kellerman's testimony about JFK speaking.  The 3 occupants closest to JFK did not hear him say those words.  I suspect Kellerman wanted us to believe that Kennedy was not incapacitated.

 

I also agree with you about Tom Wilson's work -- it has been admitted as evidence in several court cases.  I don't agree with all of the conclusions arrived at by Wilson & Phillips, but the results of the photo analyses are quite intriguing.

 

The excerpts from Sprague are enlightening.  There seems to be a very good case for Novel as UM - he certainly has the looks and the qualifications.

 

 


"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#4 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 01 August 2014 - 10:02 AM

Great work, Karen! I don't know whether your conclusions are 100% accurate or not, but I compliment your research and presentation. They are quite compelling. It's times like this that I miss Jack White the most. It would have been good to get his take on this.

 

Additionally, I advise caution when drawing conclusions based on analyzing fuzzy / blurry images in a web browser.


  • Larry Trotter likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#5 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 01 August 2014 - 05:41 PM

I have to concur with Mr Burnham about fuzzy/blurry images, mainly because I am not sure that I don't see the "missing signs" as noted. But, a lot of work and good research in an area that deserves it, as TUM and DCM, aka WTM, are well worth a thorough investigation.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#6 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 01 August 2014 - 07:21 PM

Admittedly, viewing these pictures in a web browser is not ideal.  I prepared another picture that may better illustrate what I'm talking about. 

 

In the Willis and Betzner pictures, I just don't see any evidence of the white opaque backgrounds on the two signs.  I see artifacts that are left over from a partial erasure, but not the original solid backgrounds.  The Rickerby photo is also fuzzy, but the signs can be clearly seen, if not clearly read.

 

um10.png

 

If anyone would like to look at the pictures in better resolution, I obtained these photos from Robin Unger's gallery, from the folders noted below each picture.


"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#7 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 01 August 2014 - 10:04 PM

In comparing the Willis and Rickerby frames, it is just as valid to conclude that words on the former large sign were intentionally blurred as it is to argue that the smaller signs were intentionally if partially erased.

 

In comparing the Betzner and Rickerby frames, it is just as valid to conclude that the large sign in the former view was moved to a position closer to parallel to the course of Elm Street as it is to argue that the smaller signs were intentionally if partially erased.

 

Variations between and among cameras, film stock, aperture settings, developing processes, photographers' positions, and a host of additional variables including parallax render this analysis invalid.

 

Not to mention the fact that I detect the smaller signs in both Willis and Betzner.  And I do not see UM standing behind the sign.

 

Alas, nothing you have "discussed so far is factual, or at least self-evident."

 

As for the purpose of the alterations you suggest, let's cut to the chase:  What was removed?  Was it removed from all known views of the area taken within the time frame under consideration?

 

As for the reasons for altering the Z-film (which I accept as fact) and other moving and still images of the assassination: Do you conclude that these actions were taken to eliminate proof of conspiracy?  Were the alterations made with the intent that they be discovered?  Both?


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#8 Gordon Gray

Gordon Gray

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 11:23 PM

Hastily altered photos and films would not stand up to scrutiny as evidence in a trial.. It is MO that once the trial was not an issue, theses photos and films were altered to tell the story necessary for the coverup.



#9 Ray Mitcham

Ray Mitcham

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 29 posts

Posted 02 August 2014 - 03:04 AM

Comparing the Betzner photo with the Willis, the former was obviously taken from a position to the right of the latter. Parallax would account for the lady in the Willis photo, who is directly in front of the pole, appearing to move to our left in the Betzner. It would also account for the apparent difference in the positions of the boys to her right.

 

In both of the photos, you can still make out the small white signs on the left pole. This si the Willis photo with added color.

 

willissign2_zps20ec1c20.jpg



#10 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 02 August 2014 - 04:08 AM

Good work, indeed.

Ms. Clift, this certainly gets one thinking.

 

I have long been bothered by the inconsistency of fables and the reality.

I have long been bothered by the "frozen moment"(s) when though wounded the President made no overt move to get himself nor his wife under cover.

I feel this would be the reaction of most anyone if avoidance of murder were possible.

 

For lack of solid "proof" I am forced to speculate as to a reason why the President wasn't moving and grabbing his wife and getting down into the floorboards covering her with his own body.

The man was not a chickenhawk like Bu$h, he knew the sound of rifle fire long before November 1963 in service to this Nation and WeThePeople.

 

I strongly suspect something else was at work than M/C 6.5 mm projectiles. I strongly suspect something rendered the President immobile for the few seconds required to kill him.

UM and TA sure make me suspicious of them.

Thanks Ms. Clift and others contributing.

 

Jim


  • Larry Trotter and Karen Clift like this

#11 Phil Dragoo

Phil Dragoo

    Founding Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 578 posts

Posted 02 August 2014 - 04:46 PM

Above, Greg referred to the work of Sprague and Cutler, and here then is a link to

 

 

THE UMBRELLA SYSTEM: PRELUDE TO AN ASSASSINATION
by Richard E. Sprague and Robert Cutler

 

http://www.ratical.o...le/JFK/TUM.html

 

TUM1.gif

 

Here is the introductory paragraph:

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

      To the skeptic who refuses to accept the idea that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in the assassination of John Kennedy, nothing could be more convincing than to demonstrate how one of the CIA's secret poison and weapon systems was used in the assassination. Such a claim would have been scoffed at by everyone, but the weapons system itself was made public by Mr. William Colby, CIA director; Mr. Richard Helms, former CIA director; and Mr. Charles Senseney, a contract weapons designer for the CIA in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Church Committee) in September 1975.

 

~~~

 

The article is an overview of sequence, paralysis by flechette, radio-coordinated volleys at circa Z-189 and Z-312-313.

 

Of note is this paragraph summary of significant action:

 

The flechette struck JFK in the throat at Z189, entering above his collar, creating a 4mm entry wound and causing immediate paralysis. The trajectory can be seen from photo #13 to have cleared the edge of the limousine. The flechette was traveling at an angle from the right front of the limousine, and it missed the other occupants of the car. The paralysis took place in about one and a half seconds, from Z189 to Z216. By Z224 (see photo #4), JFK's arms, fists, head, and shoulders had been in a paralyzed state for a half-second. The flechette made no noise when launched, so that no one heard a shot at the time of Z189.

 

The existence of the paralytic flechette was teased out of Colby, Helms and Senseney by Church in Senate Select Committee hearings in 1975.

 

Helms had removed Nixon via a false-flag op known as Watergate staffed with CIA operatives e.g. McCord, Hunt, Sturgis, Barker.  Nixon is removed (with the prominent assistance of ONI mole Woodward) to install FBI mole Ford to appoint CIA-friendly Rockefeller and the key GHW Bush as DCI to sanitize the witness list for the coming storm of HSCA.

 

It will be recalled that Helms went to Dulles for funding for MK ULTRA, that Helms was defacto director between 1961 and 1966.

 

I find the paralysis as plausible preamble to the flurry of shots radio-coordinated in (at least) two volleys.

 

Reference to Helms, special weapons, CIA operatives indicates the presence of facilitators in key positions within extant agencies, not the culpability of agencies per se.

 

Use of The Umbrella System remains speculative. 

 

A person in possession of his motor nervous system will duck, dive, curl up, tuck up, hit the dirt and the like.

 

We are on solid ground positing the president was not such a person.

 

Blather about back braces to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

A final excerpt regarding what is obviously the term providing the title of Mark Lane's book, Plausible Denial:

 

Church:   Thank you Senator Schweiker. I think it is clear that the CIA was interested in the development of a delivery system that could reach human beings, since not many dogs wear clothing. And you would agree with that, wouldn't you?

 

Senseney:   Yes.

 

Church:   Okay.

 

Schwarz: Along the same line, I assume you must agree that spending money in order to make darts of such a character that they cannot be detected in an autopsy does not have much to do with dogs?

 

Senseney:   No, that would not have anything to do with dogs.

 

 


  • Larry Trotter likes this

#12 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 03 August 2014 - 12:11 AM

Thank you everyone for your feedback, and Phil for your additional reference material.  It has been very helpful.

 

I realize now that I came on much too strong with my assertions in the original posting.  I've been working on a revised version where I've toned it down considerably and make it clear I'm stating only my own opinions and theories.  In addition, I added a piece recommending that the photos be properly tested to determine if there are any alterations, or if the anomalies are merely due to variations in camera lenses and angles and such.

 

During the rewrite, I thought of some additional arguments for UM being a shooter and was able to come up with some reference material in support of those arguments.  As a result, I think a strong case could still be made for UM being a shooter even if the photos turn out to be 100% genuine.

 

Thank you again for your comments.

 

 


  • Larry Trotter likes this

"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#13 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 08:42 AM

And thank YOU, Karen, for all your good effort and for being open to constructive criticism. This is the type of exchange that I envisioned would take place more frequently on this forum. That a researcher would advance their own views with conviction while remaining open to well reasoned suggestions and then make modifications to their original thesis if/when warranted without taking offense.

 

Well done.


  • Larry Trotter likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#14 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 03 August 2014 - 02:10 PM

According to what Fletcher Prouty told me himself:

 

"That [umbrella] system was quite remarkable. You could see the subject through the targeting mechanism just like he was right there in front of you--close up--and you'd track him by rotating the canopy. A shot like the one in Dealey Plaza wouldn't have been difficult. You see, the distance from Kennedy to that man with the umbrella looks a lot farther in the pictures and films, but it was quite close. An easy shot with a device like that. I've seen it done in testing from a much greater distance than that. Once they blew the hind leg clean off of a goat with one of those darts--loaded with a very high explosive--from about a hundred yards away."


  • Rick Needham likes this

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 

#15 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:08 PM

A ".45-sized handgun" is a high-tech weapon?

 

Undocumented gibberish.

 

On an unrelated note: You just can't get good pan service nowadays.


"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#16 Jim Hackett II

Jim Hackett II

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 928 posts

Posted 03 August 2014 - 08:49 PM

Ms. Karen,

Just what was too strong in that thought provoking post?

 

Not much to me, the free expression of ideas reasoned and thought out is to be encouraged,

well presented ideas/opinions are not required to be "correct" nor universal to me.

 

Only by such expressions and review by one's peers has any progress been made in the Murder of the President.

The "government" won't do the job beyond a "probable conspiracy" of 1979.

 

"Probable" to me is not enough in light of the facts developed by the independent researchers. Conspracy as fact is closer to truth I feel.

Jim



#17 Charles Drago

Charles Drago

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • LocationWherever I am observed by myself.

Posted 03 August 2014 - 09:10 PM

What was it about the Dealey Plaza ambush that would have driven its planners to conclude that a well-protected team comprised of some of the finest snipers in the world using world-class conventional weapons in a time-tested, coordinated, triangulated operation could not do the job absent the deployment and utilization of relatively exotic weaponry the likes of an umbrella gun?

 

Is there extant any evidence for the existence in 1963 of a neurotoxin that, once introduced into a human body in the amount that could have fit in a flechette of a size compatible with delivery by an umbrella gun of the sort under consideration, could bring about near-instantaneous paralysis of an adult male?

 

Would a paralyzed-by-neurotoxin JFK be expected to be able to raise his arms to his throat?

 

Was the umbrella gun targeted not at JFK, but rather at well-intentioned researchers attempting to gain a full and clear understanding of the who/how/why of the assassination?


  • Larry Trotter likes this
"[Y]ou can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity." -- Graham Greene, The Quiet American

"If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence. He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave." -- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods

a wind has blown the rain away and blown
the sky away and all the leaves away,
and the trees stand. i think i too have known
autumn too long
-- e. e. cummings

#18 Karen Clift

Karen Clift

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • LocationUnited States

Posted 04 August 2014 - 12:19 AM

What was it about the Dealey Plaza ambush that would have driven its planners to conclude that a well-protected team comprised of some of the finest snipers in the world using world-class conventional weapons in a time-tested, coordinated, triangulated operation could not do the job absent the deployment and utilization of relatively exotic weaponry the likes of an umbrella gun?

 

To be perfectly honest, I find this puzzling as well.  Despite my conviction that a paralytic was used, I wouldn't have thought it to be necessary, for all the reasons you stated above.  And yet, they couldn't seem to manage a head shot until the target was immobilized (for whatever reason) and the car at a complete stop.  Perhaps the planners knew something we didn't.

 

Is there extant any evidence for the existence in 1963 of a neurotoxin that, once introduced into a human body in the amount that could have fit in a flechette of a size compatible with delivery by an umbrella gun of the sort under consideration, could bring about near-instantaneous paralysis of an adult male?

 

Per Sprague and Cutler, it "totally paralyzes its victim within two seconds."

 

Would a paralyzed-by-neurotoxin JFK be expected to be able to raise his arms to his throat?

 

This is only the germ of a theory, and needs much more research to be confirmed or debunked, but I think it is possible it was an involuntary-reflexive action.  The cervical spine nerves are responsible for the motor reflexes of the arms, elbows, wrists, and fingers.  One or more projectile fragments striking the nerves between C5 and C8 may have accounted for what I have always considered to be his odd, unnatural reaction.

 

This was not likely caused by the alleged flechette.  That object was protruding from his neck, so did not penetrate far.  But the flechette is also said to be silent or nearly silent.  Yet, most witnesses reported hearing a firecracker or backfire at this point.  Once again this is an early-stage theory, but perhaps a conventional weapon was fired at about the same time as the umbrella.  The flechette hit the side of the neck, the conventional weapon hit the center of the neck, and its fragments hit C5-C8 causing the reflexive actions.  Even if JFK was already paralyzed, I would think the arm lifts could still occur because of being involuntary motor reflexes.

 

 

Was the umbrella gun targeted not at JFK, but rather at well-intentioned researchers attempting to gain a full and clear understanding of the who/how/why of the assassination?

 

The answer to that question is as clear as the answer to any question we have regarding the assassination.


"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should ... withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know."      

-- John F. Kennedy


#19 Larry Trotter

Larry Trotter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 277 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 04 August 2014 - 12:58 AM

As I recall, at one time there was an expressed thought that possibly JFK reacted to the throat wound by pulling on his necktie with his left hand, and pointing toward the neck wound with his right hand. I believe it is forever to be unknown for sure, but I accept it as a possibility.


Larry

Student of Assassination Research


#20 Greg Burnham

Greg Burnham

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,060 posts
  • LocationSan Diego, CA

Posted 04 August 2014 - 09:00 AM

I want to thank everyone for their contributions to this thread. I found Karen's work compelling enough to publish on the main site here. That is not to say I endorse every claim made, but that further discussion is warranted.

 

It is also worth mentioning that although it could be argued there was no absolute need to employ this high tech weapon in the assassination, that is not a compelling argument to exclude the possibility of its having been employed given the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. We simply do not know, but the evidence pointing in that direction has not been sufficiently studied in any event.


_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
 
Greg Burnham
Admin

 

 

"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- JFK

"It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep."  -- Farewell America (1968) 

“The ancient Greek definition of happiness was the full use of your powers along lines of excellence."  -- JFK

"A wise man can act a fool, but a foolish man can never act wise."  -- Unknown

 

Website:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Main Page

 

Forum:

AssassinationOfJFK.net Research Forum

 
YouTube Channel:
 
GooglePlus:
 
Twitter:
 
Facebook:
 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: umbrella man, conspiracy, cover-up, black dog man, stemmons, alteration, willis, betzner, steven witt, flechette

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Web Work by: XmasZen.com