Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Thu 24 Nov 2011, 8:07 am

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/21/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

According to Tink, Witt's story was so wacky, it had to be true.

Fri 09 Dec 2011, 10:38 am

Umbrella man exposed

Umbrella Man - more doubts

Jefferson Morley's response to the second article:

The story of Umbrella Man was told by Tink Thompson, one of the first and best JFK assassination researchers who has since gone on to distinguished career in forensic investigation. Thompson--not anyone from the New York Times--effectively dismantled the notion that Umbrella man had anything to do with the assassination. People who are skeptical about the official JFK story can and should accept Thompson's point here without sacrificing their skepticism that we have the whole truth.

The story is important, as Thompson notes, as a cautionary tale about interpreting the evidence in the JFK story. When you are skeptical it is tempting to read evidence as sinister but it is not always justified. The test is what is credible based on the evidence. There is no evidence that the man with the umbrella (or Dark Complected Man) was involved in the assassination. Not in the forensic evidence, not in eyewitness testimony, not in the investigative record. None

Thompson (not the New York Times) presents the eyewitness testimony of Steven Witte, the man with the umbrella. WWW presents no evidence contradicting his account. There is no evidence that the gunmen coordinated their actions via signals from the umbrella. None.

John Simkin's claim that "everybody had a bowler and umbrella" in those days reflects his Anglo-centrism more than anything else. He is unacquainted with the iconography of Munich in the American mind in which the tap-tap-tapping of Chamberlain's umbrella on the cobblestones was important. To dismiss Witt's eyewitness account in favor of Simkin's speculation is unjustified.

To play up the Umbrella man story as relevant to the causes of JFK's death is worse than a distraction. It undermines the effort to get the full story that began with Tink Thompson's seminal work "Six Seconds in Dallas," and continues to this day.

My response to JM

Whilst I usually find myself agreeing with Jeff on most major JFK related issues, I have to make this a rare exception. Jeff may be right that the so-called Umbrella Man is a non-issue, but he is dead wrong for accepting Thompson's piece as going any where near demonstrating that. The SOLE reason he could muster for dismissing TUM was that Witt's story was so weird it just had to be true. On that basis, we may as well accept Harvey & Lee, Judyth Baker and the Gemstone Files. When pressed by WWW for anything else which convinced him, all Tink could come up with was that another "respected" researcher had told him that someone had mentioned that Witt had told his dentist he was the Umbrella Man. What???? So now we are accepting 3rd or 4th hand hearsay as solid evidence?

But it gets worse. The "respected" researcher turned out to be David Lifton - he of body alteration fame and a one time proponent of shooters from fake trees. Mr Lifton has been repeatedly asked for the name of his informant as well as the name of Witt's dentist, but will not respond. In any case, the story has been debunked through the location of a 1978 article in which Witt was quoted a saying he had not followed any assassination stories and was totally unaware of any controversy over the course of the previous 15 years. Another factor is that Witt claimed, not that he remembered anything about Chamberlain himself, but that he had heard from co-workers that JFK (and/or family members) had been heckled in Arizona by protesters using umbrellas as signifying Chamberlain/Joe Kennedy appeasement policies. But there is NO verification of this story. I have searched newspaper archives and simply cannot find any mention of any such heckling of this type anywhere, nor any mention in any book on the Kennedys that they had any weird umbrella phobias traceable to Chamberlain, Mary Poppins , or any other Brit or Non-Brit.

So to recap -- to accept Witt, we have to agree to accept a whole raft of claims that don't seem to have any support - not in this world at least, as well as take the word of a former supporter of shooters from fake trees.

If you cannot bring yourself to accept TUM as part of any ambush based on lack of evidence, you should not be accepting Witt as TUM for the very same reason.

One last thing (for Russ), the Rio Grande Building also housed the law office of Mr & Mrs Grier Raggio. Who were they? Louise Raggio was Ruth Paine's divorce lawyer - a member of the AFSC (but later joins the Unitarian Church with her husband) and a former WH intern who befriended LBJ during that period. Grier had allegedly been rejected by Army Intelligence after Pearl Harbor because of his "leftist" background. As a member of the ACLU, it was Grier who suggested to Greg Olds that they form a delegation to check on Oswald's "rights". The result? They reported Oswald's rights were being respected - without even talking to him. Were the Raggios, given especially Grier's past (alleged) rejection by Army Intel, really the sort of people you'd expect to be saying "good morning" every morning to those same spooks as they entered the Rio Grande and took the elevator to their office? More here:
Send Lawyers Guns & Money Pt2

Fri 09 Dec 2011, 12:03 pm

I fully understand Jefferson does not want to be personally embarrassed, nor see the case be side-tracked by supporting anything which may in and of itself be subject to ridicule. But here, in order to dismiss a "wacky" theory, he is ironically forced to accept a "wacky" story which suffers from even less support than any TUM theory.

My view is, when assessing evidence you need to suck it up and go where it goes - no matter how "out there" - and conversely, not matter how mundane or "non-fitting" of your own perceptions of the crime it may be.

Supporting something simply because it is conspiratorial is one definition of "wacky". But rejecting it on less even than wafer thin evidence simply because of any fear it brings the case ridicule also leads us nowhere fast.

Accept Witt as TUM by all means -- but show us REAL evidence. Provide some names of these people who knew about Witt PRIOR to the HSCA publishing the photos.

And accept Witt's story concerning the umbrella by all means - but again - show us the evidence that he was inspired by stories of past umbrella protests against JFK.

If you, JT or Lifton cannot provide the above, then you all you really have are your own opinions.

Sat 10 Dec 2011, 6:59 am

My own opinions, please, and nothing more.

In Russ Baker’s first response to the _New York Times_ and the video on The Umbrella Man, he writes:

[SNIP ARTICLE/QOUTE]

And so it presents the ridiculous, and asks us to believe it. Cutting to the chase, the man seen opening an umbrella comes forward to explain why he did it. Reason: in 1963, he was still mad at Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his appeasement of Hitler, and held JFK’s father to blame as US ambassador to England in that period. Chamberlain was famed for carrying an umbrella. So—get this—Umbrella Man, hoping to make a statement about what happened in the late 1930s to JFK in 1963, pumped his umbrella at the time the fatal shots were fired…only for this obscure purpose.

[SNIP ARTICLE/END QOUTE]

This does not seem to be the “reason”, according to the testimony of the supposed Umbrella Man, Louis Steven Witt. Witt was still not “mad” about Chamberlain, or his appeasement of Hitler, nor did he hold Kennedy Sr. to blame for his support of said policies.

Nor is it accurate that Witt was hoping to make the statement of what happened in the late 1930s to JFK in 1963 by pumping his umbrella.

At least according to Witt’s testimony:

[SNIP TESTIMONY/QOUTE with my comments inserted in brackets]

Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?

Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.

Mr. GENZMAN. How had you gotten this idea?

Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.

[THERE ^^^ does that state he was heckling the appeasement policies of Chamberlain and Kennedy Sr.?]

Mr. GENZMAN. Are you saying you were going to use the umbrella as a symbol for the purpose of heckling?

Mr. WITT. I think that would cover it. . .

Mr. GENZMAN. You testified that you were opening the umbrella to use it as a symbol hoping to catch the President's eye?

Mr. WITT. Yes, sir.

Mr. GENZMAN. Could you elaborate further as to the type of symbol you thought you were applying?

Mr. WITT. . . . I just knew the vague generalities of it. It had something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to England. . . .(3)

[THERE ^^^ does that appear his intent was a protest at policies of 1938?]

Mr. GENZMAN. Mr. Witt, some assassination critics have alleged your actions with your umbrella were a signal to an assassin or to assassins to fire or a signal that the President had in fact been hit. Were you signaling to anyone besides the President?

Mr. WITT. No; no one. . . .(4)

Mr. FAUNTROY. I wonder if you would care to tell us a little more about your understanding of the significance of the umbrella, and why you felt that it would heckle the president to raise the umbrella?

Mr. WITT. . . . It had something to do with . . . when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime Minister [Neville Chamberlain], some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler. The umbrella that the Prime Minister of England came back with got to be a symbol in some manner with the British people. By association, it got transferred ot the Kennedy family, and, as I understood, it was a sore spot with the Kennedy family, like I said, in coffee break conversations someone had mentioned, I think it is one of the towns in Arizona, it is Tucson or Phoenix, that someone had been out at the airport or some place where some members of the Kennedy family came through and they were rather irritated by the fact that they were brandishing the umbrellas. This is how the idea sort of got stuck in my mind. . . . This was in a conversation somewhere at work. I wish that I could remember now who brought the subject up and put this idea in my head. I am sure that I would have taken that umbrella and clouted him over the head somewhere in this last 2 or 3 weeks.(5)

[THERE ^^^ it appears it was an irritation to members of the Kennedy family...as Witt understood it]

Mr. WITT. [After the assassination occurred] I was somewhat stunned . . . Once the realization . . . [that something terrible had happened] . . . I was stunned. . . . I think one [of] my reactions was knowing that I was there with this stupid umbrella and heckling the President and -- of course, I didn't know that the President had been killed. As a matter of fact, I didn't know he had been shot. I just knew that something had happened by the activity and what seemed to be in the air around me. But I think my own thinking may have been at the time that -- I would have to describe it as a -- kind of like a bad joke that had gone sour, or a practical joke you pulled on someone that had gone sour, since I was there with this thing, and for that purpose.

[SNIP TESTIMONY]

Full testimony is in the link below; the above has been SNIPPED repeatedly.

[[NOTE: due to Forum Rules for New Members, I was not allowed to post the links for my qoutes...my apologies. The first was from Russ Baker's site and the second was the online AARC Public Digital Library]]

My sole intention here is to simply point out that to belittle the idea of The Umbrella Man as making a protest over the policies of 1938-1940 in 1963 to JFK is in error with the actual testimony. Witt appears to have gotten the idea that somehow waving umbrellas at the Kennedys is an irritation, and is a way for him to “heckle”.

Now, for my own, hmmmm…”conclusions”:

· For those with much invested in years of work on the assassination, I can understand the anger over The Umbrella Man in the NY Times. I consider that in Tink’s “…a cautionary tale…”, there is a lesson to be learned, even given what I say above.

· Greg Parker is right when he asks for some sort of proof of the validity of whether Witt is TUM besides just a “belief/faith” that his story is real, particularly because it seems to be so fantastical.

· Now…sighs…I will profess I lean towards Witt as being the TUM and not involved for the simple reason that to accept that BOTH he and DCM (Dark Complected Man) are “signalmen/spotters” for other shooters is something I find extremely improbable.

MS/2011-12-09/2.46PM EST

Sun 11 Dec 2011, 6:47 pm

Mark,

I agree that Witt wasn't claiming any protest about Chamberlain or Kennedy or their policies. Russ assumed that was the case since that was at least the reason given for the alleged Arizona incident that Witt was mimicking.

I pointed out the same thing above when I said Another factor is that Witt claimed, not that he remembered anything about Chamberlain himself, but that he had heard from co-workers that JFK (and/or family members) had been heckled in Arizona by protesters using umbrellas as signifying Chamberlain/Joe Kennedy appeasement policies.

So, in short, his testimony was that he'd heard the umbrella pointing was a a sore point to the family and somehow related back to Chamberlain/Kennedy appeasement policies. It's a fine point that makes not a great deal of difference in assessing the incident.

I do not think it is necessary to try and weave any theory around TUM. But until anyone can confirm some details such as the name of Witt's dentist, and supply some evidence of any similar incident in Arizona - or indeed, anywhere else in the world, it is as unsafe to take TUM off the the list of "persons of interest" as it is to accept Witt as TUM.

Sorry you had trouble posting links. Not sure why... but will try and look into it when I get a chance.

Tue 13 Dec 2011, 8:57 am

I'm a newcomer here -- not unfamiliar with many of the threads of discussion regarding the assassination by any means, but generally a lurker and not a participant in those discussions.

That said, I think it important to add that the reason we are interested in TUM these days is more important than his identity, associations or motive.

The reason we are talking about him is this misleading clip published by the New York Times, which doesn't even have the courtesy to identify Tink as being one of the earliest and most well-known of Warren Commission doubters. In his rebuttal, Russ adeptly details the NYT's head-in-the-sand, orthodoxy-enforcing approach to valid questions about the assassination of JFK. Critiques such as Russ's must continue, and be widely circulated.

Otherwise intelligent individuals who know of my conviction that a conspiracy operated to kill JFK have sent me a link to the Thompson clip, saying, in so many words, that "even Tink Thompson has been convinced of the folly of the conspiracy crowd. Their arguments all have been debunked."

Of course it doesn't debunk a thing. But it provides a simplistic answer to those who have a shallow understanding of the matter and, frankly, just wish we would stop bothering them with complicated details. The Times should be ashamed, of course. But I'm also interested in Tink Thompson's strange response that he was "delighted" with the presentation. He may have been pleased that his little morality tale was told, but was he also pleased that it led so many people to a false conclusion about his beliefs?

Or was the conclusion false? Certainly Thompson has, to his credit, refused to accept the arguments, claims and scenarios of many less-than logical conspiracy advocates. But has he now been convinced the Warren Commission was correct? I don't think so, but I've seen no statement to reaffirm his suspicions. I've sent an unanswered query to Tink, asking for a link to his current beliefs. There's been no response. I've looked for a fuller reaction to the NYT clip from Thompson. I haven't found one. I may have missed it, and would be grateful if anyone can point me to it. But if not, I wonder why he is so silent on the matter.

And thanks, Russ, for trying to keep the Times honest. It gets increasingly difficult, unfortuunately.

Thu 15 Dec 2011, 6:57 am

Thanks for the post.

I can only agree with you 100%.

Fri 05 Mar 2021, 8:39 am

The theory that UM fired a flechette to disable Kennedy is ridiculous.

If UM was a signalman, he was not in a very good spot to be seen by anyone behind the picket fence. Besides being partially obscured by the Stemmons Freeway sign, there was no control over spectators that might choose to stand in the view of those UM was to signal. If there was a shooter on the south knoll, UM was placing himself at great risk. Why not choose a location in the grassy area across the street that could be more easily viewed and use a less conspicuous method of signaling like a brightly colored hat or jacket? Better yet, just have a spotter with binoculars and a radio.

Did Thompson mention the “Dark Complected Man” who was in close proximity to UM during the assassination and who sat down next to UM immediately following the shooting as though they were getting some sun on their lunch hour. Or that DCM appeared to be carrying some kind of radio.

I think if UM had any role in the assassination, it was to covertly photograph it.

Sat 06 Mar 2021, 8:50 am

I've never seen why there has to be a complicated explanation.

DCM and TUM were there to gloat and taunt - hence the umbrella and the 'salute'.

The only 'dark-complected' men likely to have been involved in assassinating Kennedy were Cuban exiles.

The significance of the umbrella lies in it being associated with Neville Chamberlain's supposed appeasement of Hitler. For some reason this allusion to cowardice seems to have resonated strongly in US politics. Johnson used it in relation to Vietnam but he had also previously done so before the assassination in another context.

This is an interesting article:

Making sense of the Umbrella Man | Arts & Leisure | Irish Echo

Columbia Professor Todd Gitlin remembered in his memoir of the 1960s, “Day of Hope, Days of Rage” (1987), helping to organize a peace rally in Harvard in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.
“Outside our hall, several dozen anti-Castro émigrés who showed up late banged on the doors and windows. In one corner, right-wingers from Young Americans for Freedom hoisted black umbrellas, intimating that we were Munich-minded equivalents of Neville Chamberlain, and hissed sporadically throughout the evening.”

Sat 06 Mar 2021, 2:20 pm

Redfern wrote:I've never seen why there has to be a complicated explanation.

DCM and TUM were there to gloat and taunt - hence the umbrella and the 'salute'.

The only 'dark-complected' men likely to have been involved in assassinating Kennedy were Cuban exiles.

The significance of the umbrella lies in it being associated with Neville Chamberlain's supposed appeasement of Hitler. For some reason this allusion to cowardice seems to have resonated strongly in US politics. Johnson used it in relation to Vietnam but he had also previously done so before the assassination in another context.

This is an interesting article:

Making sense of the Umbrella Man | Arts & Leisure | Irish Echo

Columbia Professor Todd Gitlin remembered in his memoir of the 1960s, “Day of Hope, Days of Rage” (1987), helping to organize a peace rally in Harvard in the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.
“Outside our hall, several dozen anti-Castro émigrés who showed up late banged on the doors and windows. In one corner, right-wingers from Young Americans for Freedom hoisted black umbrellas, intimating that we were Munich-minded equivalents of Neville Chamberlain, and hissed sporadically throughout the evening.”

Thanks Redfern!

I'm sold. Tink Thompson was right, but for te wrong reason - and that was my original point - his sole reason was so much bunk. As you demonstrate, TUM's actions were not whacky, but rich in historical context.

You inspired another search, and I found this - about protesters in HK resurrecting the umbrella protests and US professor giving the history behind umbrella protests.

Should I be surprised that among his examples of it being used in protest in the US, absent is Dealey Plaza?
https://www.npr.org/2014/09/30/352808170/hong-kongs-protest-umbrellas-have-a-deep-political-history

Am moving this thread to the DEBUNKED forum. IMO, it is now officially debunked that TUM and his purpose was anything other than claimed by Witt.

Sun 07 Mar 2021, 6:28 am

Hi Greg,

I probably haven't explained my thinking too well.

Witt wasn't TUM. He had more hair in 1978 than the man photographed in 1963.

TUM and DCM had no direct role in the assassination (as in poisoned darts or as 'signallers', etc) but were fully aware. They may have tried to distract the Secret Service or be tasked to confirm Kennedy's death or otherwise, but the umbrella was a political gesture.

This is just a personal opinion but I thought this when I first started looking at the case and I never changed my mind.

I don't believe the assassination (as in Dealey Plaza but maybe beyond) was particularly sophisticated and much of the truth is in plain sight.

Tink Thompson is generally a huge asset (his presentation on the shooting sequence/Zapruder/wounds is excellent) but on this occasion his logic was well wide of the mark.

Sun 07 Mar 2021, 8:02 am

What’s curious is that TUM did rotate his umbrella clockwise which is consistent with but not proof of being a covert photographer tracking the subject.

Some type of symbolism can’t be ruled out. But Witt didn’t seem to be too knowledgable or old enough to know of the significance of Chamberlain’s umbrella. And most of the “right wing” (and a significant part of the left wing) of the 1930s was strongly isolationist. There were other anti-JFK protestors that day that were far less cryptic.

DCM’s large (radio?) with the (antenna?) seems like bad tradecraft but in the middle of chaos maybe they figured no one would notice. Or it could have been just a rolled up newspaper.

The Ed Forum had a thread about someone with an umbrella at a previous JFK motorcade.

I agree that the simplest explanations consistent with the facts is the best.

Mon 08 Mar 2021, 11:58 am

Redfern wrote:Hi Greg,

I probably haven't explained my thinking too well.

Witt wasn't TUM. He had more hair in 1978 than the man photographed in 1963.

TUM and DCM had no direct role in the assassination (as in poisoned darts or as 'signallers', etc) but were fully aware. They may have tried to distract the Secret Service or be tasked to confirm Kennedy's death or otherwise, but the umbrella was a political gesture.

This is just a personal opinion but I thought this when I first started looking at the case and I never changed my mind.

I don't believe the assassination (as in Dealey Plaza but maybe beyond) was particularly sophisticated and much of the truth is in plain sight.

Tink Thompson is generally a huge asset (his presentation on the shooting sequence/Zapruder/wounds is excellent) but on this occasion his logic was well wide of the mark.

Thanks for the clarification.

Here is Witt in 1978
Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man 138924051_92f99846-44ac-43e8-9e5f-3fd6660e7b2a

Here is TUM

Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man E8fdfca41b8b7886ae6f2344b82b2356

Not sure that the "more hair" argument is a given. But I can't say otherwise either. There are no clear enough pics of TUM to compare (imo), but it does look the same color, hairline looks about the same and his face looks similarly structured.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 1:48 am

A Wall Street Journal article on the history of the umbrella as a sign of protest. According to the article, umbrellas (as a protest symbol) started being used by American conservatives in the '50s.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-CJB-24297

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 6:48 am

I do not buy the bs during the hsca by the so called umbrella man nor what it is supposed to mean etc.
The fact that UM and DCM are sitting together after the shooting and then get up at the same time and then make their separate ways is enough for me to state these fckrs were in on it. And that is as far it can go.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 8:36 am

The HSCA asked Witt if his umbrella ever contained any kind of gun or weapon. As though he would answer, “It used to, but I found I didn’t use it very often and it was hard to find ammunition for it.” When the umbrella was opened before the HSCA, it sprung open so hard that it actually inverted to the laughter of the committee.

If Witt wasn’t TUM and TUM’s actions were simply a protest, why not get the actual UM before the committee?

They obviously felt a need to try to debunk TUM.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 10:00 am

A few pics of the two men, TUM and DCM. I understand that people want or feel a need to see walkie talkies and other suspicious items but in my opinion, I can't see any of that. I do see what could be a newspaper tucked in the rear of DCM's belt or pants or something similar. I think I see creases in the back of DCM's shirt too. I can find no supporting photographic evidence either of the pair leaving the scene either together or apart. There is one particular cropped pic which shows DCM walking toward the overpass and TUM is not in that but who's to say where he was at that point. Happy to be shown I'm wrong on this.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 10:01 am

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 11:01 am

The photo of DCM walking off into the sunset looks like he has a radio with an extended antenna in his back pocket. That seems like an uncomfortable and conspicuous way to walk. I could easily be convinced that the line that appears to be an antenna is a scratch, a fold in his jacket or some other artifact of the photo and he just has a newspaper. But there is another photograph of DCM when he was still sitting down next to TUM where he appears to be talking into a radio with an extended antenna. Or he could have been listening to a regular receiver. But why would he expect news so soon after the shooting?

1. Certainly they had smaller, less conspicuous radio transceivers in 1963.
2. Seems like sloppy tradecraft if they really are involved in the assassination.
3. On the other hand, no one made an issue about these two or even a remark in passing until a few years later.
4. If they had foreknowledge of the assassination and were there to gloat, does it rule out any shooter locations?

Here are two videos that show both DCM and TUM. I don’t necessarily endorse any of the opinions expressed or the accompanying music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-TLTWAh6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBLdV19usKA

Has anyone read Thompson’s latest book? If so, what did you think?

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 11:15 am

I think number 4 is a live possibility.

Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but would such a radio transceiver be able to communicate with someone in California? I absolutely believe that there was someone on the ground in touch with a party in California and giving live updates. I too doubt though that it would be so conspicuously done.

And DCM looks like an older man...

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 11:19 am

The photo of DCM walking off into the sunset looks like he has a radio with an extended antenna in his back pocket.

On of the shots of him sitting down looks like it is possibly a newspaper or something of similar dimensions to a folded paper inside his shirt. I think the line seen in the shot of him walking away could possibly be the result of the object making the shirt tight and therefore causing that crease.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 11:35 am

lanceman wrote:The photo of DCM walking off into the sunset looks like he has a radio with an extended antenna in his back pocket. That seems like an uncomfortable and conspicuous way to walk. I could easily be convinced that the line that appears to be an antenna is a scratch, a fold in his jacket or some other artifact of the photo and he just has a newspaper. But there is another photograph of DCM when he was still sitting down next to TUM where he appears to be talking into a radio with an extended antenna. Or he could have been listening to a regular receiver. But why would he expect news so soon after the shooting?

1. Certainly they had smaller, less conspicuous radio transceivers in 1963.
2. Seems like sloppy tradecraft if they really are involved in the assassination.
3. On the other hand, no one made an issue about these two or even a remark in passing until a few years later.
4. If they had foreknowledge of the assassination and were there to gloat, does it rule out any shooter locations?

Here are two videos that show both DCM and TUM. I don’t necessarily endorse any of the opinions expressed or the accompanying music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB-TLTWAh6s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBLdV19usKA

Has anyone read Thompson’s latest book? If so, what did you think?

Or it is creases in his shirt. Theres 3 on the back of his shirt at least to my eye which all show the same features.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 12:12 pm

greg_parker wrote:I think number 4 is a live possibility.

Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but would such a radio transceiver be able to communicate with someone in California? I absolutely believe that there was someone on the ground in touch with a party in California and giving live updates. I too doubt though that it would be so conspicuously done.

And DCM looks like an older man...

Absolutely not Greg - not a small portable handheld 1960's two-way communication device.

I too doubt though that it would be so conspicuously done.

I have no clue how far apart the photographs below were taken but for arguments sake can we assume not more than a few minutes apart. DCM is seated in almost the identical position in each photograph.

Note left arm rested on the left knee. Note also the turn of DCM.

The two men seated in almost the same position. We see a motorcycle cop and most likely the photographer's heading toward the Newmans lying on the ground. It is beyond comprehension at least to me that DCM would be on a walkie talkie at this time in view of everyone.

And a wide shot of the two men.
Clearly there does not appear to be a two way communication device held by DCM.

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 1:02 pm

Mick_Purdy wrote:

greg_parker wrote:I think number 4 is a live possibility.

Forgive my ignorance on such matters, but would such a radio transceiver be able to communicate with someone in California? I absolutely believe that there was someone on the ground in touch with a party in California and giving live updates. I too doubt though that it would be so conspicuously done.

And DCM looks like an older man...

Absolutely not Greg - not a small portable handheld 1960's two-way communication device.

I too doubt though that it would be so conspicuously done.

I have no clue how far apart the photographs below were taken but for arguments sake can we assume not more than a few minutes apart. DCM is seated in almost the identical position in each photograph.

Note left arm rested on the left knee. Note also the turn of DCM.

The two men seated in almost the same position. We see a motorcycle cop and most likely the photographer's heading toward the Newmans lying on the ground. It is beyond comprehension at least to me that DCM would be on a walkie talkie at this time in view of everyone.

And a wide shot of the two men.
Clearly there does not appear to be a two way communication device held by DCM.

Thanks Mick. Yes a crease is what I would assume, increased in nature and visibility by extra tightening caused by the newspaper or whatever inside the shirt.

Re communications.

If in 1963, if you wanted to communicate updates to someone interstate in real time using something other than a normal phone, how would you do that?

Tue 09 Mar 2021, 1:05 pm

ps

re DCM's age... looks fairly old in some, shots but young(ish) in others so he may not be as old as I thought when only looking at one or two shots.

Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man

Re: Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man