JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Jake Maxwell on March 08, 2026, 02:45:24 AM
-
This is from Moorman... Looks like a gunman or a spotter...
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
-
This is from Moorman ... Looks like a gunman or a spotter.
LOL!
It looks as though HARVARD-EDUCATED DR. William Niederhut has come to the right place.
-
Yeah... you can see the similarity...
(https://i.ibb.co/qFhZBDxy/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-9-03-39-PM.png)
-
Your horrid photo analysis continues unabated, I see?
-
It can look like anything you want it to be. Use your imagination.
Oh, wait. You already did.
-
Why would a shooter need a spotter for a 100 foot shot?
-
A shooter is concentrating on the target. The spotter keeps track of everything else around him.
-
A shooter is concentrating on the target. The spotter keeps track of everything else around him.
Such as?
-
Such as?
Such as whether or not any of them Libtard xxxxxxx was tryin' to steal their totally bitchin' 1958 Pontiac Bonneville Getaway Car!
D'oh!
-
I'm going to help Mr. Storing out here because he seems to be flailing.
Here are the duties of a spotter on a sniper team:
The spotter on a sniper team is responsible for a variety of critical tasks that support the sniper's mission. These duties include:
Target Acquisition and Identification: Identifying potential targets, assessing their threat level, and confirming their identity through visual observation and intelligence sources.
1
Environmental Analysis: Analyzing weather conditions, such as wind speed and direction, temperature, and humidity, which can significantly impact bullet trajectory.
1
Ballistic Calculations: Using specialized equipment and knowledge of ballistics to calculate the precise adjustments needed to compensate for environmental factors and distance.
1
Security and Surveillance: Maintaining constant vigilance, providing security for the sniper team, and alerting them to potential threats.
1
Communication and Coordination: Communicating information to the sniper, higher command, and other relevant units. This includes relaying target information, calling in artillery support if needed, and reporting enemy movements.
1
Equipment Maintenance: Ensuring that all equipment, including rifles, optics, communication devices, and rangefinders, are in optimal working condition.
1
Observation and Reporting: After an engagement, observing the impact of the shot, providing feedback to the sniper, and reporting the results to command.
Now again I ask, which of the above tasks would be critical for someone firing a shot at JFK from or near the Grassy Knoll.
-
Why would a shooter need a spotter for a 100 foot shot?
This is what you asked. Whether it is a 30 ft shot or a 100 ft shot, a "spotter" has the shooter's 6.
-
This is what you asked. Whether it is a 30 ft shot or a 100 ft shot, a "spotter" has the shooter's 6.
Preposterous. A spotter would have no useful purpose on such a short range shot. One of the things a spotter does is help with the calculations for factors such as range and windage. Completely negligible at such a short distance. Another important function is looking for counter snipers. Hence the term "spotter". A sniper on the GK would know he would be subject to return fire from the protection detail once he opened fire, but he wouldn't need a spotter to know those people were there.
-
10-4, Fife. Over and Out.
-
10-4, Fife. Over and Out.
Okay, Festus.
-
Isn't it amazing that Oswald managed to shoot JFK twice without the aid of a spotter.
-
This doesn't have to be a spotter... he could be an actual shooter...
But the image is real... and has similarities to someone looking through a scope of some sort...
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/qFhZBDxy/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-9-03-39-PM.png)
-
It requires a real active imagination to think that the posted picture even remotely resembles a man with a rifle. You really have to be desperate to conjure up a second gunman when you believe nonsense like that.
-
It requires a real active imagination to think that the posted picture even remotely resembles a man with a rifle. You really have to be desperate to conjure up a second gunman when you believe nonsense like that.
John, sadly you're wasting your time. "Jake Maxwell" has brought forth some of the most ridiculous photo alteration claims in recent memory. Somewhere, Jack White, Ralph Cinque and James Fetzer are applauding...
-
John, sadly you're wasting your time. "Jake Maxwell" has brought forth some of the most ridiculous photo alteration claims in recent memory. Somewhere, Jack White, Ralph Cinque and James Fetzer are applauding...
It's been a number of years since I saw the name Ralph Cinque. I used to engage with him over on McAdams website. He had some bizarre ideas. I think his baby was the Oswald Innocence Campaign or something like that. Is Ralph still on the good side of the grass?
-
It is strange to see Maxwell getting consistently dogpiled, vs no response regarding: (1) "Shadow DNA", and, (2) A "Rectangle Of Invisibility" measuring 17.5 Feet long by almost 5 Feet high. ALL of these being in the vein of "Badge Man".
-
It's been a number of years since I saw the name Ralph Cinque. I used to engage with him over on McAdams website. He had some bizarre ideas. I think his baby was the Oswald Innocence Campaign or something like that. Is Ralph still on the good side of the grass?
Bizarre is a polite way to describe Cinque's beliefs. He seems to have been chased off of every forum where he once posted. I believe he is now operating some kind of alternative health clinic out of his home in the south. And here he is writing letters to FBI Director Kash Patel :D :D
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-open-letter-to-fbi-director-kash.html
-
Bizarre is a polite way to describe Cinque's beliefs. He seems to have been chased off of every forum where he once posted. I believe he is now operating some kind of alternative health clinic out of his home in the south. And here he is writing letters to FBI Director Kash Patel :D :D
https://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2025/03/an-open-letter-to-fbi-director-kash.html
Glad to hear Cinque is still around. As far as I know, he wasn't kicked off the McAdams forum. I think he left on his own years before John passed away. Of all the crackpots I've dealt with over the years, his quirkiness made him somewhat likeable. I wouldn't say that about most of the CTs I've sparred with over the last 35 years.
I doubt Cinque's letter ever got upstairs to Kash Patel unless someone reading the letter thought Kash might get a good chuckle out of it. I know I did.
-
x
-
Duplicate post
-
It is strange to see Maxwell getting consistently dogpiled, vs no response regarding: (1) "Shadow DNA", and, (2) A "Rectangle Of Invisibility" measuring 17.5 Feet long by almost 5 Feet high.
Dear Royell,
I asked James:
"What did you mean by, 'DNA scale identification of the Wiegman Gap? DNA scale???'"
His reply:
"I meant the power to unequivocally match the shadows in the Wiegman 'Gap' with the Hughes shadows. Meant as analogy, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole."
In other words, Royell, the shadows on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville in the Hughes clip sufficiently match those on the object next to the "island" and in the gap between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" as to be able to identify said object as your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car."
IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG!
LOL!
17.5-foot-long "Rectangle of Invisibility"?
LOL!!!
(See above)
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
I asked James:
"What did you mean by, 'DNA scale identification of the Wiegman Gap? DNA scale???'"
His reply:
"I meant the power to unequivocally match the shadows in the Wiegman 'Gap' with the Hughes shadows. Meant as analogy, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole."
In other words, Royell, the shadows on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville in the Hughes clip sufficiently match those on the object next to the "island" and in the gap between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" as to be able to identify said object as your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car."
IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG!
LOL!
17.5-foot-long "Rectangle of Invisibility"?
LOL!!!
(See above)
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
I asked James:
"What did you mean by, 'DNA scale identification of the Wiegman Gap? DNA scale???'"
His reply:
"I meant the power to unequivocally match the shadows in the Wiegman 'Gap' with the Hughes shadows. Meant as analogy, with perhaps a bit of hyperbole."
In other words, Royell, the shadows on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville in the Hughes clip sufficiently match those on the object next to the "island" and in the gap between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" as to be able to identify said object as your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car."
IT WAS THERE ALL ALONG!
LOL!
17.5-foot-long "Rectangle of Invisibility"?
LOL!!!
(See above)
-- Tom
There is a time gap between Wiegman filming the Island and Hughes filming of the "getaway" car. This means the light source/Sun has moved and therefore changed the shadows being cast. Claiming to: (1) "UNEQUIVOCALLY Match the shadows...", and, (2) Provide a claimed DNA Match, is ridiculous.
Going back to the erroneous Lego Cars, Lego Men, Lego Women, and now this Shadow DNA, I have tried to be nice in addressing these admitted failures and the ensuing apologies. This is now a track record. What is continually being claimed is right in line with the cartoonish "Badge Man" stuff. Straight out of The Nutty Professor Laboratory.
-
There is a time gap between Wiegman filming the Island and Hughes filming of the "getaway" car. This means the light source/Sun has moved and therefore changed the shadows being cast.
Dear Royell,
Yes, the sun has moved a significant degree.
That's why the shadows on the car that's visible next to the "island" (or do you still think it's a car on the other side of Elm Street Extension or maybe the wall of the TSBD???) in the gap between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in the Wiegman clip are different from those cast on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville parked in the same spot in Hughes, but retain enough gross similarities as to make it possible to determine that they're being cast by the same branches and clumps of leaves and are, therefore, being cast onto the same car -- your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car"!
Look at it this way:
Given the fact that the sun has moved so much, if the shadows had been more similar than they are, it would have cast (pardon the pun) doubt that the cars were the same.
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
Yes, the sun has moved a significant amount.
That's why the shadows on the car that's visible next to the "island" (or do you still think it's a car on the other side of Elm Street Extension or maybe the wall of the TSBD???) in the gap between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in the Wiegman clip are different from those cast on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville parked in the same spot in Hughes, but retain enough gross similarities as to make it possible to determine that they're being cast by the same branches and clumps of leaves, and are, therefore, being cast onto the same car -- your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car"!
Look at it this way:
Given the fact that the sun has moved so much between Wiegman and Hughes, if the shadows had been more similar than they are, it would have cast (pardon the pun) doubt that they were the same cars.
-- Tom
-
Do you have a problem comprehending what, "UNEQUIVOCALLY Match" means? This declaration leaves no room for hedging. Which is exactly what You and "The Nutty Professor" need in order to repeatedly retract his conclusions time-after-time-after-time.
-
Do you have a problem comprehending what "unequivocal match" means?
Dear Royell,
Not at all.
Having only recently taken a close look at the shadows on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville in Hughes and compared them to the shadows being cast many minutes earlier on the object between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in Wiegman, James has shown us that said shadows are so similar in their gross aspects as to definitely and unequivocally prove that the object between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora" in Wiegman is nothing other than the mid-portion of the aforementioned 1958 Pontiac Bonneville.
In other words, after a long and complicated analysis of a complicated situation, James has proved that his original intuition was correct -- your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car" was there all along!
By the way, Royell, thank you for admitting that shadows are falling on something between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in Wiegman.
Hopefully, you don't think (sic) that the object in that gap is a car parked on the other side of Elm Street Extension . . . or [fill in the blank].
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
You asked if I have a problem comprehending what James' use of the term "unequivocal match" means in the context of identifying your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car" in Wiegman.
Not at all, Royell.
Having only recently taken a close look at the shadows on the 1958 Pontiac Bonneville in Hughes and compared them to the shadows being cast many minutes earlier on the object between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in Wiegman, James has shown us that said shadows are so similar in their gross aspects as to definitely and unequivocally prove that the object between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora" in Wiegman is nothing other than the front portion of the aforementioned 1958 Pontiac Bonneville.
In other words, after a long and complicated analysis of a complicated situation, James has proved that his original intuition was correct -- your 1958 Pontiac Bonneville "Getaway Car" was there all along!
By the way, Royell, thank you for admitting that shadows are falling on something between "Purse Lady" and "Fedora Man" in Wiegman.
Hopefully, you don't think (sic) that that "something" is a car parked on the other side of Elm Street Extension . . . or [fill in the blank].
-- Tom
-
If you take a look at the images of the Elm St Ext from Wiegman to roughly 30 minutes after the kill shot, you will see that the Elm St Ext is engulfed with shadows. But you wouldn't know this. Instead of doing the laborious research, you simply attach yourself to "The Nutty Professor" and endorse the wearing of Red/Cyan Glasses which is supposed to reveal, "Shadow DNA". "Birds of a feather.....".
-
If you take a look at the images of the Elm Street Extension from Wiegman to roughly 30 minutes after the kill shot, you will see that the Elm Street Extension is engulfed with shadows.
Dear Royell,
Was the oak tree casting any shadows on Inspector Sawyer's car around 12:45?
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
Was the oak tree casting any shadows on Inspector Sawyer's car around 12:45?
-- Tom
You glom onto The Nutty Professor's "Shadow DNA", and THEN ask the question above? You're completely lost with respect to the Elm St Extension.
-
You glom onto James' "Shadow DNA", and then ask the question above?
Dear Royell,
You seem to be hung up on James' "DNA" metaphor.
What's yours, by the way?
Russian?
-- Tom
-
The FBI report (Nov. 23, 1963) summarizing the statement of Abraham Zapruder:
“He stated that he heard a noise which he thought was a firecracker and then heard a second and third report. He stated that it appeared to him that the shots came from behind him.”
(https://i.ibb.co/zTxnJ6Jb/Screenshot-2026-03-19-at-9-43-22-PM.png)
-
Based upon your photographs, I believe this makes the 23rd shooter in DP.
-
Based upon your photographs, I believe this makes the 23rd shooter in DP.
Other people in DP thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, including JBC and two of the agents in the follow up car who can be seen looking to the rear in the direction of the TSBD. Some of the people in DP were right and some of them were wrong about where they shots came from. Which group is corroborated by the finding of spent shells and a rifle found where they thought the shots came from. Which group is corroborated by an eyewitness who saw a gunman where they thought the shots came from. Which group has no corroboration for their impression of where the shots came from.
-
Other people in DP thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, including JBC and two of the agents in the follow up car who can be seen looking to the rear in the direction of the TSBD. Some of the people in DP were right and some of them were wrong about where they shots came from. Which group is corroborated by the finding of spent shells and a rifle found where they thought the shots came from. Which group is corroborated by an eyewitness who saw a gunman where they thought the shots came from. Which group has no corroboration for their impression of where the shots came from.
"The DIRECTION of the TSBD...." takes in a lot of territory. This description would include: (1) in front of, (2) to the sides, and (3) behind the TSBD. You guys continually treat this very general description like it pinpoints the TSBD. It does Not.
-
"The DIRECTION of the TSBD...." takes in a lot of territory. This description would include: (1) in front of, (2) to the sides, and (3) behind the TSBD. You guys continually treat this very general description like it pinpoints the TSBD. It does Not.
Only a fool thinks sound is a reliable way of determining where a gunshot was fired from. If it were reliable, there would be a consensus. But there is no consensus. My reason for bringing up those who thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD was to show there was no such consensus. The forensic evidence and an EYEwitness tell us where the shots were fired from. Conspiracy hobbyists don't want to believe that all the shots were fired from the TSBD but since they have no credible evidence of shots from any other locations, they turn to unreliable forms of evidence, like the impressions of earwitnesses.
-
Only a fool thinks sound is a reliable way of determining where a gunshot was fired from. If it were reliable, there would be a consensus. But there is no consensus. My reason for bringing up those who thought the shots came from the direction of the TSBD was to show there was no such consensus. The forensic evidence and an EYEwitness tell us where the shots were fired from. Conspiracy hobbyists don't want to believe that all the shots were fired from the TSBD but since they have no credible evidence of shots from any other locations, they turn to unreliable forms of evidence, like the impressions of earwitnesses.
For starters, how about you tone down the "fool" stuff?
I believe you lean on the 3 hulls far too much. The claim being that 3 hulls = 3 shots. But the fly in that ointment is that the cadence of those 3 shots can Not be accomplished with a bolt action Carcano rifle. An issue that You never mention. We have Umbrella Man/Witt and an adult Amos Euins both on film tapping out the 3 shot cadence. "Pow....Pow/Pow"!
-
For starters, how about you tone down the "fool" stuff?
I believe you lean on the 3 hulls far too much. The claim being that 3 hulls = 3 shots. But the fly in that ointment is that the cadence of those 3 shots can Not be accomplished with a bolt action Carcano rifle. An issue that You never mention. We have Umbrella Man/Witt and an adult Amos Euins both on film tapping out the 3 shot cadence. "Pow....Pow/Pow"!
More reliance on unreliable sources, aka earwitnesses. There are other earwitnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. We know all the earwitnesses cannot be right because their recollections are mutually exclusive. Of course you gravitate to the ones that support your narrative rather looking for more credible forms of evidence. I don't rely on earwitnesses for much of anything. Earwitnesses are even less reliable than eyewitnesses who are notoriously unreliable. Yet you choose to take the recollections of Witt and Euins as if they are gospel. Furthermore, you put your faith in Euins recollections years after the event.
3 hulls is not proof positive of 3 shots. Even the WC allowed for the possibility that Oswald could have started with a spent hull in the chamber and ejected it prior to firing. However, that possibility seems quite remote given the clear consensus that there were 3 shots and JBC's clear recollection and his observable reaction to a missed shot prior to the one which struck him in the back.
You demonstrate a trait that I've noticed is common among conspiracy hobbyists over the decades I've engaged with them. You judge the credibility of witness accounts based on whether it fits with your preferred narrative, not on how it fits with the body of evidence as a whole. Nothing any witness tells, eye or ear witness, should be accepted as fact unless it can be corroborated by other forms of evidence. That doesn't mean witnesses are always wrong but it does mean they aren't always right. They get things wrong, sometimes very important details wrong. I don't find any argument compelling that begins with "So-and-so said..." unless it can be established by the body of evidence that so-and-so remembered the event correctly.
-
More reliance on unreliable sources, aka earwitnesses. There are other earwitnesses who said the shots were evenly spaced. We know all the earwitnesses cannot be right because their recollections are mutually exclusive. Of course you gravitate to the ones that support your narrative rather looking for more credible forms of evidence. I don't rely on earwitnesses for much of anything. Earwitnesses are even less reliable than eyewitnesses who are notoriously unreliable. Yet you choose to take the recollections of Witt and Euins as if they are gospel. Furthermore, you put your faith in Euins recollections years after the event.
3 hulls is not proof positive of 3 shots. Even the WC allowed for the possibility that Oswald could have started with a spent hull in the chamber and ejected it prior to firing. However, that possibility seems quite remote given the clear consensus that there were 3 shots and JBC's clear recollection and his observable reaction to a missed shot prior to the one which struck him in the back.
You demonstrate a trait that I've noticed is common among conspiracy hobbyists over the decades I've engaged with them. You judge the credibility of witness accounts based on whether it fits with your preferred narrative, not on how it fits with the body of evidence as a whole. Nothing any witness tells, eye or ear witness, should be accepted as fact unless it can be corroborated by other forms of evidence. That doesn't mean witnesses are always wrong but it does mean they aren't always right. They get things wrong, sometimes very important details wrong. I don't find any argument compelling that begins with "So-and-so said..." unless it can be established by the body of evidence that so-and-so remembered the event correctly.
There's a radical conflict between the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man and the Bronson Film. Which do you believe is true?
-
There's a radical conflict between the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man and the Bronson Film. Which do you believe is true?
I'll always side with a film record over the recollections of any witness.
-
I'll always side with a film record over the recollections of any witness.
Your reliance on "film record" is strange. This means you would believe "JFK" by Oliver Stone, "over the recollections of any witness".
-
Your reliance on "film record" is strange. This means you would believe "JFK" by Oliver Stone, "over the recollections of any witness".
You must have graduated from the Jackie Gleason School of Logic.
-
Your reliance on "film record" is strange. This means you would believe "JFK" by Oliver Stone, "over the recollections of any witness".
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between a film record of an event and a fictional portrayal of it.
-
You seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between a film record of an event and a fictional portrayal of it.
You better review the history of the Bronson Film. That Bronson "film record" was Not Publicly Known until AFTER Witt's HSCA Testimony. And specifically, what qualification(s) need to be met in order to qualify for your "film record" label? You throw that "film record" classification around very easily. The Bronson Film was MIA for close to 15 yrs.
-
You better review the history of the Bronson Film. That Bronson "film record" was Not Publicly Known until AFTER Witt's HSCA Testimony.
So?
-
So?
Again. I ask specifically what is required to qualify for your "Film Record" label. The Bronson Film showing the Umbrella Man was MIA for 15 yrs. What we see Umbrella Man NOT doing on the Bronson Film clashes with the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man. Both Witt and the Bronson Film can Not be true. They are in stark contrast with each other.
-
Again. I ask specifically what is required to qualify for your "Film Record" label. The Bronson Film showing the Umbrella Man was MIA for 15 yrs. What we see Umbrella Man NOT doing on the Bronson Film clashes with the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man. Both Witt and the Bronson Film can Not be true. They are in stark contrast with each other.
If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.
-
If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.
There's a big difference between a witness giving testimony that is "wrong" vs a "lie". For you to describe Witt's testimony as "wrong" vs what we see on the Bronson Film, signals you are not completely familiar with Witt's HSCA Testimony. There's nothing wrong with admitting this, and your unfamiliarity regarding the history of the Bronson Film. For you to reply with a "So?", is akin to a blind man reaching out in the dark. There's also nothing wrong with asking specific questions.
-
If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.
What material conflict is there between Witt's testimony and the Bronson film? All I see so far are some vague claims that one exists, but nothing specific that can be examined.
-
What material conflict is there between Witt's testimony and the Bronson film? All I see so far are some vague claims that one exists, but nothing specific that can be examined.
Thanks for being man enough to simply ask this question. Witt testified that he was sitting on the knoll when the JFK Limo surprised him as it came down Elm St. He jumped up and began moving straight toward Elm St as he simultaneously struggled to open his umbrella. He claimed by the time he looked up from his struggling with the umbrella, that the JFK Limo had already traveled passed by him. None of this is on the Bronson Film. The Bronson film shows Witt standing stock still with the JFK Limo not yet having reached him. Witt did positively ID himself on the photo showing Witt seated on the retaining wall with The Cuban. The Bronson film had not become public at the time of the Witt HSCA testimony. The Zapruder Film also shows the Umbrella being fully open and pumped as the JFK Limo passed by the Umbrella Man.
-
There's a big difference between a witness giving testimony that is "wrong" vs a "lie". For you to describe Witt's testimony as "wrong" vs what we see on the Bronson Film, signals you are not completely familiar with Witt's HSCA Testimony. There's nothing wrong with admitting this, and your unfamiliarity regarding the history of the Bronson Film. For you to reply with a "So?", is akin to a blind man reaching out in the dark. There's also nothing wrong with asking specific questions.
If a person gives testimony that is demonstrably incorrect, they could simply be wrong or they could be lying. Perjury is when you give testimony that you know to me wrong and it is a serious crime. Most people when testifying under oath are going to try to give accurate accounts to the best of their ability. Human beings are fallible and don't always remember things exactly the way they happened. I have no reason to believe Witt deliberately falsified his testimony. I believe he testified to the event as best he remembered it. If it doesn't square with the film record, it doesn't prove he committed perjury. It means he had less than perfect memory which is true for all of us.
-
If a person gives testimony that is demonstrably incorrect, they could simply be wrong or they could be lying. Perjury is when you give testimony that you know to me wrong and it is a serious crime. Most people when testifying under oath are going to try to give accurate accounts to the best of their ability. Human beings are fallible and don't always remember things exactly the way they happened. I have no reason to believe Witt deliberately falsified his testimony. I believe he testified to the event as best he remembered it. If it doesn't square with the film record, it doesn't prove he committed perjury. It means he had less than perfect memory which is true for all of us.
If you were an adult and inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, you would remember whether you were walking toward Elm St and fighting to open your umbrella vs standing stock still and pumping your umbrella as JFK cruised by you. I don't believe this is an unreasonable expectation. I've watched his HSCA Testimony a couple of times. He seemed perfectly normal. Not a basket case or anything along those lines 15 yrs later. Witt ID'd himself as being the Umbrella Man. Nobody else has ID'd Witt as being the Umbrella Man. Nobody.
-
If you were an adult and inside Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63, you would remember whether you were walking toward Elm St and fighting to open your umbrella vs standing stock still and pumping your umbrella as JFK cruised by you. I don't believe this is an unreasonable expectation. I've watched his HSCA Testimony a couple of times. He seemed perfectly normal. Not a basket case or anything along those lines 15 yrs later. Witt ID'd himself as being the Umbrella Man. Nobody else has ID'd Witt as being the Umbrella Man. Nobody.
15 years after the fact and you expect a guy to remember every detail exactly like it happened? Unbelievable.
-
Thanks for being man enough to simply ask this question. Witt testified that he was sitting on the knoll when the JFK Limo surprised him as it came down Elm St. He jumped up and began moving straight toward Elm St as he simultaneously struggled to open his umbrella. He claimed by the time he looked up from his struggling with the umbrella, that the JFK Limo had already traveled passed by him. None of this is on the Bronson Film. The Bronson film shows Witt standing stock still with the JFK Limo not yet having reached him. Witt did positively ID himself on the photo showing Witt seated on the retaining wall with The Cuban. The Bronson film had not become public at the time of the Witt HSCA testimony. The Zapruder Film also shows the Umbrella being fully open and pumped as the JFK Limo passed by the Umbrella Man.
The best quality version of the Bronson film is at the SFM website:
https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/bronson-film-8mm-2/ (https://www.jfk.org/collections-archive/bronson-film-8mm-2/)
From this, by the time Bronson is filming the limo rolling down Elm, it has indeed already passed TUM, just as Witt said.
-
The best quality version of the Bronson film is at the SFM website:
Here It Is Thumb1:
-
15 years after the fact and you expect a guy to remember every detail exactly like it happened? Unbelievable.
This is not a failure to remember "every detail" 15 yrs later. There is a stark contrast between what Witt Testified to, vs the Image Evidence recovered after his HSCA Testimony. At the time, Witt knew there was no image evidence to discredit his story. He had been deposed just like every WC witness was prior to their Q/A. This is what led to Witt proffering the prop umbrella. So he lied. You have a blatant bias. This taints your opinions/observations.
-
This is not a failure to remember "every detail" 15 yrs later. There is a stark contrast between what Witt Testified to, vs the Image Evidence recovered after his HSCA Testimony. At the time, Witt knew there was no image evidence to discredit his story. He had been deposed just like every WC witness was prior to their Q/A. This is what led to Witt proffering the prop umbrella. So he lied. You have a blatant bias. This taints your opinions/observations.
I have to admit, I am biased. I have bias toward believing things that are supported by actual evidence as opposed to suppositions which is your preferred MO. It is absurd to think that Witt should have remembered every minute detail about his actions and the sequence in which they occurred 15 years after the fact. I can't think of any event in my life that I could have recalled with absolutely clarity and accuracy 15 years later. Why would you demand such clarity from Witt. I guess when you don't have any real evidence to support your silly beliefs you are forced to make mole hills out of ant hills.
-
I have to admit, I am biased. I have bias toward believing things that are supported by actual evidence as opposed to suppositions which is your preferred MO. It is absurd to think that Witt should have remembered every minute detail about his actions and the sequence in which they occurred 15 years after the fact. I can't think of any event in my life that I could have recalled with absolutely clarity and accuracy 15 years later. Why would you demand such clarity from Witt. I guess when you don't have any real evidence to support your silly beliefs you are forced to make mole hills out of ant hills.
Will you STOP with the "minute" routine? People do not believe it is a "minute detail" to remember: (1) STANDING like a statue, (2) DIRECTLY looking at the POTUS, and (3) HECKLING him by pumping an umbrella. Any of us going out of our way to do ALL of this would remember it.
-
Will you STOP with the "minute" routine? People do not believe it is a "minute detail" to remember: (1) STANDING like a statue, (2) DIRECTLY looking at the POTUS, and (3) HECKLING him by pumping an umbrella. Any of us going out of our way to do ALL of this would remember it.
Keep trying to convince yourself of that.
-
Will you STOP with the "minute" routine? People do not believe it is a "minute detail" to remember: (1) STANDING like a statue, (2) DIRECTLY looking at the POTUS, and (3) HECKLING him by pumping an umbrella. Any of us going out of our way to do ALL of this would remember it.
But the Bronson film doesn't disprove anything Witt said. You did actually watch the Bronson film before commenting, right?
-
But the Bronson film doesn't disprove anything Witt said. You did actually watch the Bronson film before commenting, right?
Yes I have. The Zapruder Film too. There are absolutely NO IMAGES of Umbrella Man ever being physically on the Knoll. None.
-
Yes I have. The Zapruder Film too. There are absolutely NO IMAGES of Umbrella Man ever being physically on the Knoll. None.
An awful lot of people consider the "grassy knoll" to be all of the grassy area to the north of Elm. That includes the grassy area in front of the pergola.
-
An awful lot of people consider the "grassy knoll" to be all of the grassy area to the north of Elm. That includes the grassy area in front of the pergola.
For future reference, I consider The Knoll to be the grass (E) of The Steps/ in front of The Pergola. The Grassy Knoll = Between The Steps & The Triple Underpass.
-
For future reference, I consider The Knoll to be the grass (E) of The Steps/ in front of The Pergola. The Grassy Knoll = Between The Steps & The Triple Underpass.
You completely missed the point. As far as Witt's testimony is concerned, the only important definition of Grassy Knoll is whatever he thought it was..
-
You completely missed the point. As far as Witt's testimony is concerned, the only important definition of Grassy Knoll is whatever he thought it was..
"Whatever he thought it was"? Now you're getting into Bill Clinton territory. Please stop dragging this out.
(1) Witt testified that he was walking straight toward Elm St. (2) He ID'd himself as being in the photo showing him and The Cuban sitting on the retaining wall after the kill shot. (3) He testified something along the lines of, "We just sat down" following the kill shot. ALL of this clearly shows what section of the "Grassy Knoll" Witt was referring to. It helps to be familiar with the entire Witt HSCA Testimony.
-
"Whatever he thought it was"? Now you're getting into Bill Clinton territory. Please stop dragging this out.
(1) Witt testified that he was walking straight toward Elm St. (2) He ID'd himself as being in the photo showing him and The Cuban sitting on the retaining wall after the kill shot. (3) He testified something along the lines of, "We just sat down" following the kill shot. ALL of this clearly shows what section of the "Grassy Knoll" Witt was referring to. It helps to be familiar with the entire Witt HSCA Testimony.
You just argued that: a.) Witt claimed that he was on the grassy knoll and b.) that the Bronson film shows that Witt was not on the GK. I pointed out that he can easily be seen in the Bronson film standing in front of the Pergola, and that many people consider that the GK to be the grassy area north of Elm. By implication, Witt would have been on the knoll if the more expansive definition was used. Also by implication, the Bronson film is not proof that Witt lied or otherwise misrepresented his position.
Your response was "well, I define the GK to be...." But it's not about how you define GK, but how Witt would have defined the term. Is it really that hard for you to follow along?
-
Your response was "well, I define the GK to be...." But it's not about how you define GK, but how Witt would have defined the term. Is it really that hard for you to follow along?
It probably is.
-
You just argued that: a.) Witt claimed that he was on the grassy knoll and b.) that the Bronson film shows that Witt was not on the GK. I pointed out that he can easily be seen in the Bronson film standing in front of the Pergola, and that many people consider that the GK to be the grassy area north of Elm. By implication, Witt would have been on the knoll if the more expansive definition was used. Also by implication, the Bronson film is not proof that Witt lied or otherwise misrepresented his position.
Your response was "well, I define the GK to be...." But it's not about how you define GK, but how Witt would have defined the term. Is it really that hard for you to follow along?
There are NO Images at any point in time showing Witt/Umbrella Man standing on any "grassy area". That argument has absolutely nothing to support it. Totally ridiculous right out of the blocks.
-
There are no images at any point in time showing Witt/Umbrella Man standing on any "grassy area." That argument has absolutely nothing to support it. Totally ridiculous right out of the blocks.
Dear Royell,
How many photographic images of that part of Dealey Plaza during that period of time are there other than Bronson's "quickie"?
-- Tom
-
Dear Royell,
How many photographic images of that part of Dealey Plaza during that period of time are there other than Bronson's "quickie"?
-- Tom
My Dad used to tell my brother and me, "I'll work with you guys. I will Not work For you".
YOU need to do the research. Start by actually watching the entire HSCA Witt testimony and seeing the Image evidence presented to him at that hearing.
-
My Dad used to tell my brother and me, "I'll work with you guys. I will Not work For you".
YOU need to do the research. Start by actually watching the entire HSCA Witt testimony and seeing the Image evidence presented to him at that hearing.
He could either do the research or make things up the way you do.
-
He could either do the research or make things up the way you do.
This is where you are now at. Personal attack.
-
This is where you are now at. Personal attack.
The personal attacks I throw in gratis.
-
Note to self: argument weak... attack the person...
-
Note to self: argument weak... attack the person.
Dear Jake,
You're either a joke, or a KGB agent.
Which is it?
-- Tom
-
Dear Jake,
You're either a joke, or a KGB agent.
Which is it?
-- Tom
Your comment perfectly illustrates the ad hominem fallacy... when the argument is weak... when the position is tenuous... the person is attacked.
Again, there are enough patterns in the pixels to call for closer examination...
Moorman appears to have captured the image of a gunman in the pergola window, behind Zapruder...
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/qFhZBDxy/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-9-03-39-PM.png)
-
Here's a gif with slight enhancements...
Again, there are enough patterns in the pixels to call for closer examination...
Moorman appears to have captured the image of a gunman in the pergola window, behind Zapruder...
(https://i.ibb.co/RTdwF2hM/ezgif-com-resize-90.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/dsKTRfMj/ezgif-com-resize-92.gif)
-
The height of that Pergola Shelter window has always been an issue. Leroy Blevins did a You Tube video regarding a shooter firing from that window. He had his nephews help out with the video. One nephew got down on all 4's. The other nephew stood atop his back and leveled a rifle out of that shelter window. It's stuff like that, that sets the conspiracy theory back decades. Blevins basically rejiggered an old "3 Stooges" routine. Blevins failed to explain how a hit man might conquer the height of that window. Now it's your turn.
-
Wow - two of the absolute worst photo analysts in JFK assassination history arguing with each other about their crazy theories. This oughta be fun!
-
Wow - two of the absolute worst photo analysts in JFK assassination history arguing with each other about their crazy theories. This oughta be fun!
So, Mr "photo analyst", how about you tell this Forum where that 17.5 feet long by almost 5 feet tall "getaway" car is on the Wiegman Film? I'm waiting on You.
-
So, Mr "photo analyst", how about you tell this Forum where that 17.5 feet long by almost 5 feet tall "getaway" car is on the Wiegman Film? I'm waiting on You.
What kind of getaway car remains at the scene of the crime for 3 hours. Even an Amish getaway buggy could leave quicker than that.
-
What kind of getaway car remains at the scene of the crime for 3 hours. Even an Amish getaway buggy could leave quicker than that.
You don't seem to understand.
Storing believes that the bad guys either planned to join the motorcade after they'd shot JFK "from the bushes," but changed their mind when they got to that intersection, or they planned on parking it next to the "island" for the TSBD shooters to drive away in after exiting through the BIG HUGE GATES that patsy Oswald had opened for them.
-
What kind of getaway car remains at the scene of the crime for 3 hours. Even an Amish getaway buggy could leave quicker than that.
John, it probably had to stay there for three hours until the imposter Officer Haygood could find the glove he dropped into the grassy knoll sewer manhole. Then it tried crashing into the HUGE GATES, just for fun, until SS Agent George Hickey accidentally fired his weapon right into the enormous lock, instantly breaking it into two pieces.
-
You don't seem to understand.
Storing believes that the bad guys either planned to join the motorcade after they'd shot JFK "from the bushes," but changed their mind when they got to that intersection, or they planned on parking it next to the "island" for the TSBD shooters to drive away in after exiting through the BIG HUGE GATES that patsy Oswald had opened for them.
OH!!! Now it all makes sense!!!
<chuckle>
-
There are NO Images at any point in time showing Witt/Umbrella Man standing on any "grassy area". That argument has absolutely nothing to support it. Totally ridiculous right out of the blocks.
You're kidding, right? You can see a man in black with an open black umbrella on the grass in front of the Pergola in the Bronson film! Do just make this $#!^ up as you go along?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBBb4sn1/Bronson-Witt.jpg)
-
You're kidding, right? You can see a man in black with an open black umbrella on the grass in front of the Pergola in the Bronson film! Do just make this $#!^ up as you go along?
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBBb4sn1/Bronson-Witt.jpg)
Umbrella Man is standing on the sidewalk. This is why he said something along the lines of, "... just sat down" with respect to sitting on the retaining wall behind him. People such as yourself are simply unfamiliar with just how wide that sidewalk is. When they shut down Dealey Plaza to do the CSI work, they had DPD Cop Cars parked on that same sidewalk. Those cop cars did not hang over the sides of the sidewalk. That Elm St sidewalk is not similar to the one you used to play hopscotch on.
-
You failed to mention, he also went to Brown.
Very important!
-
Gif with very slight enhancements... Once you see it, you can't not see it...
Moorman got the profile of a gunman with a scope or barrel it appears...
Likely using light scaffolding or ladder... quickly disposed after the assassination...
(https://i.ibb.co/LDbXNxcY/ezgif-com-resize-93.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/vfbhb8D/ezgif-com-resize-94.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/qFhZBDxy/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-9-03-39-PM.png)
-
[...]
Dear Jake,
Are you a follower of QAnon, too?
-- Tom
-
Dear Jake,
Are you a follower of QAnon, too?
-- Tom
Anyone who thinks he sees a gunman in the pergola window is showing a new level of desperation. For the most part, the JFKA conspiracy clan has abandoned the Badgeman theory years ago. I've seen few who stick by it recently. Should we call this Son of Badgeman. It's even nuttier than the original.
-
Gif with light enhancements and a little brighter view...
Exact same sniper profile...
Yeah... you can see him... it's not that hard...
(https://i.ibb.co/Vpv3HHgV/ezgif-com-resize-96.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/zWyXhFsd/ezgif-com-resize-95.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/qFhZBDxy/Screenshot-2026-03-08-at-9-03-39-PM.png)
-
Take note of Zapruder's testimony in this dialogue below... Zapruder follows the line of thought that Kennedy was hit on the right side of his head, and that the shot came from behind him... and that he was in the line of fire...
This fellow shooting from the pergola window is likely what Zapruder heard...
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, yes.
-
Take note of Zapruder's testimony in this dialogue below... Zapruder follows the line of thought that Kennedy was hit on the right side of his head, and that the shot came from behind him... and that he was in the line of fire...
This fellow shooting from the pergola window is likely what Zapruder heard...
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes--after the shots--yes, some of them were motorcycle cops--I guess they left their motorcycles running and they were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting. I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course, you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere, but being I was here and he was hit on this line and he was hit right in the head--I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked down into Elm Street, you saw the President hit on the right side of the head and you thought perhaps the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, yes.
Zapruder's got his mistaken impression the bullet struck the right side of JFK's head because he saw the right side of JFK's head open up. Such an explosive wound is more associated with an exit. In fact the bullet entered the rear of JFK's head and exited near his temple. It shattered his skull and the pressure cavity caused an explosive blowout wound between the entrance and exit wounds.
Conspiracy hobbyists always look to the least compelling evidence to get their answers rather than the most compelling. In this case, it required and autopsy to determine the true nature of his wounds. The autopsy positively established the two shots the struck JFK entered in his upper back and the back of his head.
Case Closed.
-
Zapruder's got his mistaken impression the bullet struck the right side of JFK's head because he saw the right side of JFK's head open up. Such an explosive wound is more associated with an exit. In fact the bullet entered the rear of JFK's head and exited near his temple. It shattered his skull and the pressure cavity caused an explosive blowout wound between the entrance and exit wounds.
Conspiracy hobbyists always look to the least compelling evidence to get their answers rather than the most compelling. In this case, it required and autopsy to determine the true nature of his wounds. The autopsy positively established the two shots the struck JFK entered in his upper back and the back of his head.
Case Closed.
When the closest witnesses to the event give their testimony, confirmed by the response of trained police officers - not to mention the reaction of crowds of people swarming the grassy knoll to investigate what they heard - it's not a matter of case closed - but "mind closed"... closed to all testimony and all visual evidence that might go contrary to a pre-conceived theory.
Mind closed.
And perhaps "eyes closed"...
Moorman's photo suggests the profile of a sniper from the pergola window, and it warrants further investigation.
(https://i.ibb.co/zWyXhFsd/ezgif-com-resize-95.gif)
-
When the closest witnesses to the event give their testimony, confirmed by the response of trained police officers - not to mention the reaction of crowds of people swarming the grassy knoll to investigate what they heard - it's not a matter of case closed - but "mind closed"... closed to all testimony and all visual evidence that might go contrary to a pre-conceived theory.
Mind closed.
And perhaps "eyes closed"...
Moorman's photo suggests the profile of a sniper from the pergola window, and it warrants further investigation.
(https://i.ibb.co/zWyXhFsd/ezgif-com-resize-95.gif)
You don't need an open mind to see a sniper in the pergola window.
You need a hole in your head.
-
It's a good thing that evidence doesn’t depend on insults... ;)
-
It's a good thing that evidence doesn’t depend on insults.
You are an insult -- to rationality.
-
You are an insult -- to rationality.
Reason and openness to new evidence endure, even in the face of your middle school insults.;)
(https://i.ibb.co/RTdwF2hM/ezgif-com-resize-90.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/Vpv3HHgV/ezgif-com-resize-96.gif)
-
This seems to be a better enhancement... He comes right out of the shadows...
(https://i.ibb.co/5gx3Ct8J/ezgif-com-resize-85.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/SXH50KGz/ezgif-com-resize-86.gif)
-
This seems to be a better enhancement... He comes right out of the shadows...
(https://i.ibb.co/5gx3Ct8J/ezgif-com-resize-85.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/SXH50KGz/ezgif-com-resize-86.gif)
Do you have any idea how comical that is?
-
This overlay might help some recognize the very profile of a sniper in the pergola window...
(https://i.ibb.co/cXSkmHCn/ezgif-com-crop-49.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/99RF9YSS/ezgif-com-resize-87.gif)
-
This overlay might help some recognize the very profile of a sniper in the pergola window...
(https://i.ibb.co/cXSkmHCn/ezgif-com-crop-49.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/99RF9YSS/ezgif-com-resize-87.gif)
Doesn't help your case at all. When you have to insert a photo of the shooter into original photo to make it look like a shooter, it means the original doesn't look like a shooter at all.
I don't suppose you've bothered to ask yourself some fundamental questions such as why no one heard an earsplitting gunshot from the pergola window, why no one saw the gunman before the shots were fired or after the shots were fired, or why a gunman would choose such a conspicuous place to fire from.
-
Umbrella Man is standing on the sidewalk. This is why he said something along the lines of, "... just sat down" with respect to sitting on the retaining wall behind him. People such as yourself are simply unfamiliar with just how wide that sidewalk is. When they shut down Dealey Plaza to do the CSI work, they had DPD Cop Cars parked on that same sidewalk. Those cop cars did not hang over the sides of the sidewalk. That Elm St sidewalk is not similar to the one you used to play hopscotch on.
Looks to me like he's on a dirty of the lawn next to the edge of the sidewalk.
However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that TUM is indeed on the sidewalk, it's still fatal to your argument. Witt testified that he was on the grass when he saw the motorcade start down Elm. He said he started walking towards the street while trying to open the umbrella. He had trouble opening the umbrella but "continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air" with the sequence ending "I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall." There is a low retaining wall at the edge of the Elm St sidewalk, so his testimony is perfectly consistent with your interpretation of the Bronson film. You're just out of luck here.
-
Looks to me like he's on a dirty of the lawn next to the edge of the sidewalk.
However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that TUM is indeed on the sidewalk, it's still fatal to your argument. Witt testified that he was on the grass when he saw the motorcade start down Elm. He said he started walking towards the street while trying to open the umbrella. He had trouble opening the umbrella but "continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air" with the sequence ending "I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall." There is a low retaining wall at the edge of the Elm St sidewalk, so his testimony is perfectly consistent with your interpretation of the Bronson film. You're just out of luck here.
Witt said by the time he got the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. That's pure BS:. Like I said, the Bronson Film was not public knowledge when he testified. This is why nobody on the panel questioned him about the difference between his testimony and the Bronson Film Images. There is simply NO WAY the Witt WC Testimony is "perfectly consistent" with his testimony. It's not even close. And he says, "POSSIBLY standing on the retaining wall." Again, that too is pure BS:. "POSSIBLY"? And you wanna swear by that?
-
Witt said by the time he got the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. That's pure BS:. Like I said, the Bronson Film was not public knowledge when he testified. This is why nobody on the panel questioned him about the difference between his testimony and the Bronson Film Images. There is simply NO WAY the Witt WC Testimony is "perfectly consistent" with his testimony. It's not even close. And he says, "POSSIBLY standing on the retaining wall." Again, that too is pure BS:. "POSSIBLY"? And you wanna swear by that?
RS: Witt said by the time he got the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. That's pure BS
The Bronson film shows that TUM is standing about where the retaining wall would be, with his umbrella up and open, while the limousine has indeed already passed him by. Did you not look at the still I posted?
There is simply NO WAY the Witt WC Testimony is "perfectly consistent" with his testimony.
1.) There is no "Witt WC testimony." He didn't testify about the assassination until the late 1970s.
2.)Adjusting for that, your sentence says, in effect, "There's NO WAY that Witt's testimony is perfectly consistent with Witt's testimony." Since there is only one "Witt's testimony" it would indeed be perfectly consistent with itself, just as a=a in all cases.
-
RS: Witt said by the time he got the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. That's pure BS
The Bronson film shows that TUM is standing about where the retaining wall would be, with his umbrella up and open, while the limousine has indeed already passed him by. Did you not look at the still I posted?
There is simply NO WAY the Witt WC Testimony is "perfectly consistent" with his testimony.
1.) There is no "Witt WC testimony." He didn't testify about the assassination until the late 1970s.
2.)Adjusting for that, your sentence says, in effect, "There's NO WAY that Witt's testimony is perfectly consistent with Witt's testimony." Since there is only one "Witt's testimony" it would indeed be perfectly consistent with itself, just as a=a in all cases.
Are you claiming that Witt was standing on: (1) the grass, or, (2) the retaining wall? Both the grass and the retaining wall are incorrect. He stood on the very wide sidewalk.
-
Are you claiming that Witt was standing on: (1) the grass, or, (2) the retaining wall? Both the grass and the retaining wall are incorrect. He stood on the very wide sidewalk.
I already answered these questions in Reply #107, a few replies above: "Looks to me like he's on a dirty of the lawn next to the edge of the sidewalk."
I also helpfully noted that your placement of TUM on the sidewalk only hurts your contentions:
"However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that TUM is indeed on the sidewalk, it's still fatal to your argument. Witt testified that he was on the grass when he saw the motorcade start down Elm. He said he started walking towards the street while trying to open the umbrella. He had trouble opening the umbrella but "continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air" with the sequence ending "I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall." There is a low retaining wall at the edge of the Elm St sidewalk, so his testimony is perfectly consistent with your interpretation of the Bronson film"
-
I already answered these questions in Reply #107, a few replies above: "Looks to me like he's on a dirty of the lawn next to the edge of the sidewalk."
I also helpfully noted that your placement of TUM on the sidewalk only hurts your contentions:
"However, even if we were to assume for the sake of argument that TUM is indeed on the sidewalk, it's still fatal to your argument. Witt testified that he was on the grass when he saw the motorcade start down Elm. He said he started walking towards the street while trying to open the umbrella. He had trouble opening the umbrella but "continued to move forward and finally got this umbrella up in the air" with the sequence ending "I think by the time I got the thing up in the air I was over and possibly standing on the retaining wall." There is a low retaining wall at the edge of the Elm St sidewalk, so his testimony is perfectly consistent with your interpretation of the Bronson film"
It appears to me at the time this photo was taken, TUM was standing on the far edge of the sidewalk. TUM's leg shadow is being cast on the lawns concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKJwz0yS/TUM-enlarged.jpg)
This photo taken relatively not long after, shows a cameraman on the sidewalk and by the angle of the shadow we can see that TUM was only inches away from the concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5GKjxPY/umbrella-man-circled.webp)
BTW, if TUM was part of the conspiracy and was either waving his umbrella or firing a poison dart, there is no way he would hang around and let himself be photographed.
JohnM
-
It appears to me at the time this photo was taken, TUM was standing on the far edge of the sidewalk. TUM's leg shadow is being cast on the lawns concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKJwz0yS/TUM-enlarged.jpg)
Actually, in your enlargement, it looks like TUM is stepping over the retaining wall, with one foot still on the grass and one on the sidewalk.
-
Actually, in your enlargement, it looks like TUM is stepping over the retaining wall, with one foot still on the grass and one on the sidewalk.
I was wondering why the shadow wasn't joining up with the bottom of his leg, but it makes sense that TUM is stepping off the retaining wall and his right leg in this image was captured just before it touched the sidewalk?
JohnM
-
It appears to me at the time this photo was taken, TUM was standing on the far edge of the sidewalk. TUM's leg shadow is being cast on the lawns concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKJwz0yS/TUM-enlarged.jpg)
This photo taken relatively not long after, shows a cameraman on the sidewalk and by the angle of the shadow we can see that TUM was only inches away from the concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5GKjxPY/umbrella-man-circled.webp)
BTW, if TUM was part of the conspiracy and was either waving his umbrella or firing a poison dart, there is no way he would hang around and let himself be photographed.
JohnM
Not only is Witt's HSCA testimony contrary to the JFK Assassination images of Umbrella Man, if you watch Witt's HSCA testimony, he handles what looks to be a heavy water pitcher. He does this with his (L) hand. As we see above, Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella with his (R) hand. It would have been interesting to see Witt sign his HSCA Testimony. Atticus Finch would have been all over this.
-
Actually, in your enlargement, it looks like TUM is stepping over the retaining wall, with one foot still on the grass and one on the sidewalk.
Yes! Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella while simultaneously doing the "Hokey Pokey". "Storing Derangement Syndrome" (SDS) is running wild.
-
Not only is Witt's HSCA testimony contrary to the JFK Assassination images of Umbrella Man, if you watch Witt's HSCA testimony, he handles what looks to be a heavy water pitcher. He does this with his (L) hand. As we see above, Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella with his (R) hand. It would have been interesting to see Witt sign his HSCA Testimony. Atticus Finch would have been all over this.
Did you even watch the entire video or will you just take a tiny slice out of context??
Louie Steven Witt throughout the entire video gestures with his right hand. And the majority of the time fidgets with his glasses while simultaneously gesturing using his right hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjRCSfCW/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-all-b.jpg)
As for the water pitcher, take careful note of the position of Witt, he's centered on the sizable microphone and also observe the location of the water pitcher on Witt's left.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zrq3XH8/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-4.jpg)
And as is plain to see, the ergonomics of reaching across himself through the centralized microphone would be incredibly awkward so Witt naturally pours himself a glass of water with his left hand, a simple act of co-ordination that he no doubt mastered since being a child.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnKGMT7k/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-water-jug.jpg)
BTW it's ironic that you'd allude to a fictional defence attorney, perhaps next time you'd be better off seeking assistance from a "Vincent Bugliosi" who would look at the entirety of a man's behaviour and would not attempt to build an entire case from a singular explainable action.
JohnM
-
Did you even watch the entire video or will you just take a tiny slice out of context??
Louie Steven Witt throughout the entire video gestures with his right hand. And the majority of the time fidgets with his glasses while simultaneously gesturing using his right hand.
(https://i.postimg.cc/jjRCSfCW/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-all-b.jpg)
As for the water pitcher, take careful note of the position of Witt, he's centered on the sizable microphone and also observe the location of the water pitcher on Witt's left.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8zrq3XH8/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-4.jpg)
And as is plain to see, the ergonomics of reaching across himself through the centralized microphone would be incredibly awkward so Witt naturally pours himself a glass of water with his left hand, a simple act of co-ordination that he no doubt mastered since being a child.
(https://i.postimg.cc/ZnKGMT7k/Louie-Steven-Witt-Umbrella-Man-Testimony-water-jug.jpg)
BTW it's ironic that you'd allude to a fictional defence attorney, perhaps next time you'd be better off seeking assistance from a "Vincent Bugliosi" who would look at the entirety of a man's behaviour and would not attempt to build an entire case from a singular explainable action.
JohnM
John - "To Kill A Mockingbird" was scored by Elmer Bernstein. He also scored "The Magnificent Seven" and kinda reprise'd that for his scoring of, "The Sons Of Katie Elder". My favorite Duke Wayne flick. I was surprised to find out that your favorite Johnny Williams scored "The Cowboys". Another Duke movie that I would include in my personal "Duke Top 5" movie list. That speaks well for Williams, that he was capable of scoring that genre way back when.
Thanks for posting the Umbrella Man water pitcher still frame. Most people would have simply done a White Wash visual aid barrage. I appreciate your fairness.
-
John - "To Kill A Mockingbird" was scored by Elmer Bernstein. He also scored "The Magnificent Seven" and kinda reprise'd that for his scoring of, "The Sons Of Katie Elder". My favorite Duke Wayne flick. I was surprised to find out that your favorite Johnny Williams scored "The Cowboys". Another Duke movie that I would include in my personal "Duke Top 5" movie list. That speaks well for Williams, that he was capable of scoring that genre way back when.
Thanks for posting the Umbrella Man water pitcher still frame. Most people would have simply done a White Wash visual aid barrage. I appreciate your fairness.
My favorite Duke film was one he wasn't even the main character which is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, also my favorite western of all. Of the ones in which he was the main character, my favorite was the Shootist which was also his last and somewhat autobiographical. Both movies co-starred Jimmy Stewart. Of his non-westerns, my favorite was Sands of Iwo Jima.
-
My favorite Duke film was one he wasn't even the main character which is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, also my favorite western of all. Of the ones in which he was the main character, my favorite was the Shootist which was also his last and somewhat autobiographical. Both movies co-starred Jimmy Stewart. Of his non-westerns, my favorite was Sands of Iwo Jima.
Liberty Valance should have been filmed in color. Especially with the "cactus rose" theme. Personally, the B/W downgrades that movie to me. Same goes for Duke's cavalry flicks. B/W = bland. Color is exactly why "The Searchers" visually "pops". "The Searchers" captures these same general locales but does so in Color.
-
John - "To Kill A Mockingbird" was scored by Elmer Bernstein. He also scored "The Magnificent Seven" and kinda reprise'd that for his scoring of, "The Sons Of Katie Elder". My favorite Duke Wayne flick. I was surprised to find out that your favorite Johnny Williams scored "The Cowboys". Another Duke movie that I would include in my personal "Duke Top 5" movie list. That speaks well for Williams, that he was capable of scoring that genre way back when.
Thanks for posting the Umbrella Man water pitcher still frame. Most people would have simply done a White Wash visual aid barrage. I appreciate your fairness.
It's interesting that out of all the advances in film making, the orchestral score hasn't changed much in the past 60-70 years. And yeah, along with Williams, Goldsmith, Howard Shore, Zimmer, Giacchino and Poledouris, I'd rank Bernstein right up there.
JohnM
-
It's interesting that out of all the advances in film making, the orchestral score hasn't changed much in the past 60-70 years. And yeah, along with Williams, Goldsmith, Howard Shore, Zimmer, Giacchino and Poledouris, I'd rank Bernstein right up there.
JohnM
Say What? How is it you omitted my Personal Favorite - JAMES HORNER?
I think for that short 3 yr time period that Howard Shore did his "Lord Of The Rings" scoring, he outdid anyone that ever scored movies. The scoring on those 3 films is phenomenal. Shore went Sandy Koufax with respect to his movie scoring over that very brief time period.
-
My favorite Duke film was one he wasn't even the main character which is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, also my favorite western of all. Of the ones in which he was the main character, my favorite was the Shootist which was also his last and somewhat autobiographical. Both movies co-starred Jimmy Stewart. Of his non-westerns, my favorite was Sands of Iwo Jima.
I probably should have included The Quiet Man among his best movies but that movie was a rom-com and that's a genre one usually doesn't associated with John Wayne.
-
Yes! Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella while simultaneously doing the "Hokey Pokey". "Storing Derangement Syndrome" (SDS) is running wild.
He's stepping over the retaining wall, just as Witt testified he did.
And the only "Storing Derangement Syndrome" here is the derangement of Storing.
-
It appears to me at the time this photo was taken, TUM was standing on the far edge of the sidewalk. TUM's leg shadow is being cast on the lawns concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKJwz0yS/TUM-enlarged.jpg)
This photo taken relatively not long after, shows a cameraman on the sidewalk and by the angle of the shadow we can see that TUM was only inches away from the concrete edge.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5GKjxPY/umbrella-man-circled.webp)
BTW, if TUM was part of the conspiracy and was either waving his umbrella or firing a poison dart, there is no way he would hang around and let himself be photographed.
JohnM
What we see above is a Cropped still frame. If you examine the entire still frame, you will see that the JFK Limo has Not yet reached the Umbrella Man. THIS, is totally contrary to Witt's HSCA testimony. Witt testified that he was moving toward Elm St while simultaneously fighting to get his umbrella open. He claimed by the time he did get the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. This prevented Witt from seeing what was happening inside the JFK Limo. Viewing the entirety of the above image, reveals that the Witt HSCA Testimony was not true.
-
What we see above is a Cropped still frame. If you examine the entire still frame, you will see that the JFK Limo has Not yet reached the Umbrella Man. THIS, is totally contrary to Witt's HSCA testimony. Witt testified that he was moving toward Elm St while simultaneously fighting to get his umbrella open. He claimed by the time he did get the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. This prevented Witt from seeing what was happening inside the JFK Limo. Viewing the entirety of the above image, reveals that the Witt HSCA Testimony was not true.
So Witt didn't perfectly remember the event 15 years after it happened.
BFD. What does that prove?
-
This is from Moorman... Looks like a gunman or a spotter...
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
There are also windows on the BACK of this same Pergola Shelter. Is it possible that you are actually seeing something through a back window of this Pergola Shelter? Something outside of the shelter, close to, or inside the railroad yard?
-
What we see above is a Cropped still frame. If you examine the entire still frame, you will see that the JFK Limo has Not yet reached the Umbrella Man. THIS, is totally contrary to Witt's HSCA testimony. Witt testified that he was moving toward Elm St while simultaneously fighting to get his umbrella open. He claimed by the time he did get the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. This prevented Witt from seeing what was happening inside the JFK Limo. Viewing the entirety of the above image, reveals that the Witt HSCA Testimony was not true.
The original image shows that JFK's Limo has already passed Witt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBBb4sn1/Bronson-Witt.jpg)
JohnM
-
What we see above is a Cropped still frame. If you examine the entire still frame, you will see that the JFK Limo has Not yet reached the Umbrella Man. THIS, is totally contrary to Witt's HSCA testimony. Witt testified that he was moving toward Elm St while simultaneously fighting to get his umbrella open. He claimed by the time he did get the umbrella open, the JFK Limo had passed by him. This prevented Witt from seeing what was happening inside the JFK Limo. Viewing the entirety of the above image, reveals that the Witt HSCA Testimony was not true.
A friend was at the HSCA hearing where Witt testified about that day. The friend stated not one person in the room thought Witt was the Umbrella Man because he got so many details wrong. The panel was actually shaking their heads during Witt's testimony.
-
There are also windows on the BACK of this same Pergola Shelter. Is it possible that you are actually seeing something through a back window of this Pergola Shelter? Something outside of the shelter, close to, or inside the railroad yard?
The conspiracy hobbyist's motto:
"If you can conceive it, you can believe it"
That applies to everything about the JFKA except for the truth. They will never believe that.
-
The original image shows that JFK's Limo has already passed Witt.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBBb4sn1/Bronson-Witt.jpg)
JohnM
Come on now John. You well know what the JFK Assassination Images show with respect to Umbrella Man and the JFK Limo. Stop lowering yourself to the level of Groden. Fold up the card table and stop with the "Three-Card Monty" routine. You're far better than this. I've seen it.
-
There are also windows on the BACK of this same Pergola Shelter. Is it possible that you are actually seeing something through a back window of this Pergola Shelter? Something outside of the shelter, close to, or inside the railroad yard?
Bump for Jake response.
-
Come on now John. You well know what the JFK Assassination Images show with respect to Umbrella Man and the JFK Limo. Stop lowering yourself to the level of Groden. Fold up the card table and stop with the "Three-Card Monty" routine. You're far better than this. I've seen it.
Well actually, Umbrella Man has never been a high priority to me because having a guy with an Umbrella making an obvious political statement makes far more sense than using the umbrella as a signal or heaven help us a concealed blow dart, but whatever.
Anyway, Witt's facial structure and body type 15 years later is still an extremely close match for Umbrella Man and the fact that he remembers most of what happened without a pedantic level of detail, in my opinion paints a picture of a normal bloke trying his best to remember a tiny slice of time from a decade and a half ago. Consider if Witt was some JFK fanatic who knew every detail with pinpoint accuracy then that all by itself would be powerful evidence of an impostor.
It reminds me of the eyewitnesses at the assassination, they all viewed an unexpected event once whereas the modern researcher has a ton of points of view from films and photos which they have studied over and over with microscopic detail but when some eyewitness makes some sort of a relatively insignificant error they are dragged over the coals for it? Go figure?
Getting back to the point of this post, when I grabbed the cropped image, I quickly checked the Bronson 8mm film and forgot that Bronson was also taking photographs and snapped the following photo a half second before the Limo reached Witt(my bad), before Bronson a literal second later swapped back to his movie camera.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/Gallery/Bronson%20Gallery/bronson_small.jpg)
JohnM
-
Well actually, Umbrella Man has never been a high priority to me because having a guy with an Umbrella making an obvious political statement makes far more sense than using the umbrella as a signal or heaven help us a concealed blow dart, but whatever.
Anyway, Witt's facial structure and body type 15 years later is still an extremely close match for Umbrella Man and the fact that he remembers most of what happened without a pedantic level of detail, in my opinion paints a picture of a normal bloke trying his best to remember a tiny slice of time from a decade and a half ago. Consider if Witt was some JFK fanatic who knew every detail with pinpoint accuracy then that all by itself would be powerful evidence of an impostor.
It reminds me of the eyewitnesses at the assassination, they all viewed an unexpected event once whereas the modern researcher has a ton of points of view from films and photos which they have studied over and over with microscopic detail but when some eyewitness makes some sort of a relatively insignificant error they are dragged over the coals for it? Go figure?
Getting back to the point of this post, when I grabbed the cropped image, I quickly checked the Bronson 8mm film and forgot that Bronson was also taking photographs and snapped the following photo a half second before the Limo reached Witt(my bad), before Bronson a literal second later swapped back to his movie camera.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/Gallery/Bronson%20Gallery/bronson_small.jpg)
JohnM
Thanks for sharing!
-
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks Tom! Thumb1:
Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
I used to think you were a bit of a Dick, but you're turning out to be a real swell guy!
JohnM
-
Thanks Tom! Thumb1:
Thanks for taking the time to read my post!
I used to think you were a bit of a Dick, but you're turning out to be a real swell guy!
JohnM
Absolutely!
The funny thing is, I still think of you as "Meathead Mytton"!
LOL!
-
There are also windows on the BACK of this same Pergola Shelter. Is it possible that you are actually seeing something through a back window of this Pergola Shelter? Something outside of the shelter, close to, or inside the railroad yard?
I suppose that is a possibility.
However, I do think there are enough visual cues to make the image resolvable as a gunman.
The exact placement could be debated. Closer scrutiny from expert photo analysts might help with this.
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/SXH50KGz/ezgif-com-resize-86.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/99RF9YSS/ezgif-com-resize-87.gif)
-
How many gunman have you located thus far?
-
Come on now John. You well know what the JFK Assassination Images show with respect to Umbrella Man and the JFK Limo. Stop lowering yourself to the level of Groden. Fold up the card table and stop with the "Three-Card Monty" routine. You're far better than this. I've seen it.
Actually, you're the one who should "fold up," as once again John has shown you don't have a blessed clue what you're talking about as it pertains to the actions of Dealey Plaza witnesses.
-
Well actually, Umbrella Man has never been a high priority to me because having a guy with an Umbrella making an obvious political statement makes far more sense than using the umbrella as a signal or heaven help us a concealed blow dart, but whatever.
Anyway, Witt's facial structure and body type 15 years later is still an extremely close match for Umbrella Man and the fact that he remembers most of what happened without a pedantic level of detail, in my opinion paints a picture of a normal bloke trying his best to remember a tiny slice of time from a decade and a half ago. Consider if Witt was some JFK fanatic who knew every detail with pinpoint accuracy then that all by itself would be powerful evidence of an impostor.
It reminds me of the eyewitnesses at the assassination, they all viewed an unexpected event once whereas the modern researcher has a ton of points of view from films and photos which they have studied over and over with microscopic detail but when some eyewitness makes some sort of a relatively insignificant error they are dragged over the coals for it? Go figure?
Getting back to the point of this post, when I grabbed the cropped image, I quickly checked the Bronson 8mm film and forgot that Bronson was also taking photographs and snapped the following photo a half second before the Limo reached Witt(my bad), before Bronson a literal second later swapped back to his movie camera.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/Gallery/Bronson%20Gallery/bronson_small.jpg)
JohnM
John - Thanks for going the extra mile with your Bronson JFK Assassination research work. I knew you would. It's a hallmark to be proud of.
With respect to the Witt HSCA Testimony, the part of his testimony that always jumps out at me is where he describes, "Screeching tires" and "Jamming Brakes". I have Never read or heard a single JFK Assassination eyewitness describe these tire/brake sounds during/after shots being fired. Though Witt's description does match the ASAIC Kellerman's WC testimony of the JFK Limo suddenly accelerating to the point of, "jumping out of the god damn street". We do not see any automobile activity that would produce "Screeching tires", or "Jamming brakes" on any of the JFK Assassination Films. This includes the Current Zapruder Film and the Nix Film (copy).
-
We do not see any automobile activity that would produce "Screeching tires", or "Jamming brakes" on any of the JFK Assassination Films. This includes the Current Zapruder Film and the Nix Film (copy).
So what that we don't "see" these things? Are you incapable of considering the possibility that Witt was embellishing? Or that he simply misremembered? My guess is that you are incapable of considering that, since instead you leap to every ridiculous conspiratorial "explanation."
-
So what that we don't "see" these things? Are you incapable of considering the possibility that Witt was embellishing? Or that he simply misremembered? My guess is that you are incapable of considering that, since instead you leap to every ridiculous conspiratorial "explanation."
So you believe Witt, but you don't believe Witt? And then you excuse Witt by claiming he was, "embellishing". Yet, Witt's HSCA "screeching tires" testimony does corroborate ASAIC Kellerman's WC testimony of the JFK Limo, "...leaping out of the G.D street". Knowing and Linking sworn testimony is important. Obviously, you are currently incapable of doing this. You need to buckle down, do the research, and familiarize yourself with the sworn testimony of JFK Assassination key players. This will help you avoid embarrassing yourself.
-
So you believe Witt, but you don't believe Witt? And then you excuse Witt by claiming he was, "embellishing". Yet, Witt's HSCA "screeching tires" testimony does corroborate ASAIC Kellerman's WC testimony of the JFK Limo, "...leaping out of the G.D street". Knowing and Linking sworn testimony is important. Obviously, you are currently incapable of doing this. You need to buckle down, do the research, and familiarize yourself with the sworn testimony of JFK Assassination key players. This will help you avoid embarrassing yourself.
Your words, not mine. Yep, I believe that Witt was the Umbrella Man. I don't care if he embellished tires screeching, and nobody else but you does either. The sum and substance of his story matches the actions of the individual in Dealey Plaza perfectly.
-
This is exactly why this murder remains unsolved after 62+ years. YOU believe what you selectively want to believe and then just dismiss everything else. Like buying into a bullet striking the traffic signal without a shred of evidence to support that having happened. You rubber stamp whatever BS: suits your fancy.
-
Hi Royell, he believes Witt. Besides Witts dumbass testimony, the same umbrella he claimed to have for 15 years didn't match the photos in Dealey Plaza. pffft
-
Hi Royell, he believes Witt. Besides Witts dumbass testimony, the same umbrella he claimed to have for 15 years didn't match the photos in Dealey Plaza. pffft
the same umbrella he claimed to have for 15 years didn't match the photos in Dealey Plaza
That's real interesting, in what way did the umbrella that Witt brought to the House Select Committee hearings differ to the Umbrella took by Witt to Dealey Plaza?
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvGhHVk0/umbrella-man-at-house-select-committee.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0CFLhx8/umbrella-man-at-house-select-committee-2.jpg)
At Dealey Plaza
(https://i.postimg.cc/Yqq1PyYd/umbrella-at-Dealey-Plaza.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/DZp2wZps/umbrella-at-Dealey-Plaza-2.jpg)
An Umbrella to protest Kennedy was seen long before Witt!
(https://i.postimg.cc/SxmNdw97/Kennedy-protest-umbrella-1961.jpg)
And what do you think that Witt attempted to achieve by deceiving the World 15 years later?
Or do you think like many others that the umbrella seen in Dealey Plaza was a "secret weapon"? "pffft" indeed!
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCL3trcF/umbrella-man-weapon-LOL.jpg)
JohnM
-
This is exactly why this murder remains unsolved after 62+ years. YOU believe what you selectively want to believe and then just dismiss everything else. Like buying into a bullet striking the traffic signal without a shred of evidence to support that having happened. You rubber stamp whatever BS: suits your fancy.
The murder was solved by the DPD in the first 12 hours when they formally charged Oswald with the murder. Everything we've learned since then has only bolstered the case against Oswald. Just because an army of conspiracy hobbyists have refused to accept the overwhelming proof of Oswald's guilt doesn't mean the murder hasn't been solved. Convincing a cult that they are wrong is an impossible task. No amount of proof will ever satisfy them. Not only is the proof of Oswald's guilt absolute, in 62 years of trying, the conspiracy cult has failed to come up with a scrap of credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald took part in the crime. That won't stop them from trying.
-
You have been sucked into using the word 'Cult" when it does Not apply. A "MAJORITY" is Not a "Cult". You are parroting babble.
-
This is exactly why this murder remains unsolved after 62+ years. YOU believe what you selectively want to believe and then just dismiss everything else. Like buying into a bullet striking the traffic signal without a shred of evidence to support that having happened. You rubber stamp whatever BS: suits your fancy.
Not sure who you are replying to but you're flailing aimlessly as usual, since I've never said a word about bullets or traffic signals, nor am I "selectively" believing anything. I simply don't believe your poppycock about impostor policemen and enormous getaway cars, and I absolutely do not believe your "analysis" of the Umbrella Man's actions in Dealey Plaza, which match perfectly fine with Witt's HSCA testimony.
-
Well actually, Umbrella Man has never been a high priority to me because having a guy with an Umbrella making an obvious political statement makes far more sense than using the umbrella as a signal or heaven help us a concealed blow dart, but whatever.
Anyway, Witt's facial structure and body type 15 years later is still an extremely close match for Umbrella Man and the fact that he remembers most of what happened without a pedantic level of detail, in my opinion paints a picture of a normal bloke trying his best to remember a tiny slice of time from a decade and a half ago. Consider if Witt was some JFK fanatic who knew every detail with pinpoint accuracy then that all by itself would be powerful evidence of an impostor.
It reminds me of the eyewitnesses at the assassination, they all viewed an unexpected event once whereas the modern researcher has a ton of points of view from films and photos which they have studied over and over with microscopic detail but when some eyewitness makes some sort of a relatively insignificant error they are dragged over the coals for it? Go figure?
Getting back to the point of this post, when I grabbed the cropped image, I quickly checked the Bronson 8mm film and forgot that Bronson was also taking photographs and snapped the following photo a half second before the Limo reached Witt(my bad), before Bronson a literal second later swapped back to his movie camera.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/Gallery/Bronson%20Gallery/bronson_small.jpg)
JohnM
SHANKS - How does the above image "match perfectly fine" with the Witt HSCA Testimony as YOU claim? You obviously have not thoroughly read the Witt testimony. The above image proves both Witt and YOU are wrong.
-
The above image proves both Witt and YOU are wrong.
Not even close. Your photo analysis skills are comically bad, man. Any wonder why nobody else on this forum believes your BS?
-
Well actually, Umbrella Man has never been a high priority to me because having a guy with an Umbrella making an obvious political statement makes far more sense than using the umbrella as a signal or heaven help us a concealed blow dart, but whatever.
Anyway, Witt's facial structure and body type 15 years later is still an extremely close match for Umbrella Man and the fact that he remembers most of what happened without a pedantic level of detail, in my opinion paints a picture of a normal bloke trying his best to remember a tiny slice of time from a decade and a half ago. Consider if Witt was some JFK fanatic who knew every detail with pinpoint accuracy then that all by itself would be powerful evidence of an impostor.
It reminds me of the eyewitnesses at the assassination, they all viewed an unexpected event once whereas the modern researcher has a ton of points of view from films and photos which they have studied over and over with microscopic detail but when some eyewitness makes some sort of a relatively insignificant error they are dragged over the coals for it? Go figure?
Getting back to the point of this post, when I grabbed the cropped image, I quickly checked the Bronson 8mm film and forgot that Bronson was also taking photographs and snapped the following photo a half second before the Limo reached Witt(my bad), before Bronson a literal second later swapped back to his movie camera.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/Gallery/Bronson%20Gallery/bronson_small.jpg)
JohnM
SHANKS - The more you endorse the WITT HSCA testimony in the face of this image, the more it becomes obvious that you have NOT thoroughly read his testimony. You need to actually do some JFK Assassination research. You are crowing in front of this forum naked as a jay bird.
-
This is from Moorman... Looks like a gunman or a spotter...
(https://i.ibb.co/CsK9crs3/ezgif-com-resize-88.gif)
A subsonic 6.5mm or 5.56 mm round fired in a short barrel 10” rifle with suppressor and no one would have heard it.
But this position from the GK pergola would be shooting laterally at a moving target so I’m not sure a professional would choose this spot on the GK where Betzner and Willis are pointing cameras at and where lots of the crowd are looking at.
There is no indication on the JFK lateral skull X-rays that there was damage on the left side of the skull where such a lateral shot from the GK pergola would have exited , except possibly the Harper fragment if it came from the top of the skull ( which is debated).
Nonetheless, the mystery man in black walking away along the low wall from this GK pergola location seconds after the head shot at Z313 is an amazing coincidence to consider.
-
A subsonic 6.5mm or 5.56 mm round fired in a short barrel 10” rifle with suppressor and no one would have heard it.
But this position from the GK pergola would be shooting laterally at a moving target so I’m not sure a professional would choose this spot on the GK where Betzner and Willis are pointing cameras at and where lots of the crowd are looking at.
There is no indication on the JFK lateral skull X-rays that there was damage on the left side of the skull where such a lateral shot from the GK pergola would have exited , except possibly the Harper fragment if it came from the top of the skull ( which is debated).
Nonetheless, the mystery man in black walking away along the low wall from this GK pergola location seconds after the head shot at Z313 is an amazing coincidence to consider.
I know you recall several giving testimony that the limousine slowed down to a near halt...
If this was the planned "kill zone" then perhaps the target wasn't moving... or was moving very slowly...
And just one look at Bill Greer rubbernecking up until the fatal shot, strongly suggests he knew exactly what he was supposed to do that day... apply brakes...
(https://i.ibb.co/pv6chyHM/Screenshot-2026-04-10-at-5-25-35-PM.png)
-
I know you recall several giving testimony that the limousine slowed down to a near halt...
If this was the planned "kill zone" then perhaps the target wasn't moving... or was moving very slowly...
And just one look at Bill Greer rubbernecking up until the fatal shot, strongly suggests he knew exactly what he was supposed to do that day... apply brakes...
(https://i.ibb.co/pv6chyHM/Screenshot-2026-04-10-at-5-25-35-PM.png)
It only suggests that to someone with an overly active imagination and too much time on their hands.
-
Bill Greer rubbernecking until the fatal shot... and applying brakes at the same time...
(https://i.ibb.co/Rh0Hbnv/ezgif-com-gif-maker-83.gif)