JFK Assassination Forum

   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.

   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.

   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.



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.

So Witt didn't perfectly remember the event 15 years after it happened.

BFD. What does that prove?

The Clinton Campaign's civilly (not criminally) liable act of paying through its lawyer for the to-be-expected oppo research against Putin-loving Trump is a drop in the bucket compared to what, for example, Paul Manafort, GRU-officer Konstantin Kilimnik, and close-to-Putin oligarch Oleg Deripaska did to get Trump "elected."

It wasn't Clinton's fault that gullible Fiona Hill, the overworked and/or mole-infested FBI, and gullible (or money hungry?) Christopher Steele didn't figure out that the dossier's primary source would be a probable KGB agent and that he would be feeding Steele dossier-discrediting false or unfalsifiable "intel" which would end up actually helping Trump, his KGB-zombified MAGA base, and the KGB, itself, after the election.

Au contraire, there's oodles and gobs of evidence that the Trump Campaign and its associates (e.g., Roger Stone and his new-found pro-Russia buddy, Harley Schlanger) conspired with the Russians to get your boy "elected."

Do you have any idea how hypocritical you sound when you make lame excuses for the transgressions of the Clinton campaign while exaggerating everything Trump's allies might have done. The bottom line is no one who was working directly for the Trump campaign was charged with any crime and the Mueller report acknowledged that they had no evidence that they committed any. The Clinton campaign on the other hand was fined for concealing their involvement in creating the phony Steele Dossier. It is also rather ludicrous to even suggest the Russian meddling amounted to a hill of beans given the magnitude of Trump's electoral college victory. The Soviets/Russians have always tried to influence our elections and there is no evidence they affected the final outcome. The only election that was close enough for there to even be a possibility of the Russians tipping the scale was the 2000 election and there isn't a scrap of evidence the Russians had anything to do with Bush's victory in Florida which is what decided that election.