25-11-2011, 06:00 PM
Lifton asks for "credible evidence" that he is not the person he claimed to be to the HSCA.
As I have previously observed, the Umbrella Man and the Cuban were obviously together:
![[Image: 153uvkx.jpg]](http://i44.tinypic.com/153uvkx.jpg)
An explanation of the presence of the Umbrella Man must account for their association.
They did not act surprised by the assassination. And their faces have been obscured:
![[Image: al3dyw.jpg]](http://i40.tinypic.com/al3dyw.jpg)
I cannot imagine why Lifton should think that the indefensible fantasy spun by Witt
should be taken seriously. Tink's objective is to undermine and ridicule belief in a
JFK conspiracy, which is why he suppresses evidence. Surely Lifton can do better.
[quote name='David Lifton' date='25 November 2011 - 07:33 AM' timestamp='1322206428' post='238863']
[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='25 November 2011 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1322203982' post='238858']
It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.
I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"
Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.
[/quote]
Please provide credible evidence that the man who testified before the HSCA and identified himself as Steven Witt was not who he said he was.
Note what I requested--not some restatement of your suspicions, but genuine evidence that he was not who he said he was, and/or that his entire account was a fraud.
Do you have any real data--or are you, too, clinging to a thoroughly refuted conspiracy hypothesis?
Alleging something was a "fairy tale" is not evidence.
DSL
11/24/11 - 11:49 PM PST
Los Angeles, CA
[/quote]
As I have previously observed, the Umbrella Man and the Cuban were obviously together:
An explanation of the presence of the Umbrella Man must account for their association.
They did not act surprised by the assassination. And their faces have been obscured:
I cannot imagine why Lifton should think that the indefensible fantasy spun by Witt
should be taken seriously. Tink's objective is to undermine and ridicule belief in a
JFK conspiracy, which is why he suppresses evidence. Surely Lifton can do better.
[quote name='David Lifton' date='25 November 2011 - 07:33 AM' timestamp='1322206428' post='238863']
[quote name='Don Jeffries' date='25 November 2011 - 07:53 AM' timestamp='1322203982' post='238858']
It astonishes me that anyone believe Witt was the Umbrella Man. His HSCA testimony was widely ridiculed and lampooned in The Continuing Inquiry at the time, and it was my assumption that all CTers recognized his appearance and ridiculous story for what it was.
I'm curious- how many CTers who now believe this fairy tale originally doubted it? If so, what has caused you to change your views and accept it? If you accept it, please address RCD's points regarding the esoteric (and I'm being kind in describing it that way) nature of Witt's protest? If it was comprehensible to anyone over the years, why didn't anyone-even early LNers-recognize what Witt was doing? Why was no one saying, "Hey, that guy was obviously using his umbrella to protest Joe Kennedy's appeasement views! Everybody knows that!"
Saying it's "just crazy enough to be true" isn't good enough for some of us.
[/quote]
Please provide credible evidence that the man who testified before the HSCA and identified himself as Steven Witt was not who he said he was.
Note what I requested--not some restatement of your suspicions, but genuine evidence that he was not who he said he was, and/or that his entire account was a fraud.
Do you have any real data--or are you, too, clinging to a thoroughly refuted conspiracy hypothesis?
Alleging something was a "fairy tale" is not evidence.
DSL
11/24/11 - 11:49 PM PST
Los Angeles, CA
[/quote]