CIA HAD AN UMBRELLA WEAPON
tomnln
Peter Fokes
>Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
Yes.
Is it true thay had a rifle that shot around corners too?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Dave Yandell
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
Did you know that Mary Poppins had a magic flying umbrella around the
same time?
Do you have a point?
ShutterBun
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
I thought the "worst post ever" contest was over?
tomnln
"Dave Yandell" <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce15f4b8-1a76-4af9...@r2g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Only that one who believes in Mary Poppins also believes in Magic Bullets!
Thanks for askin ! ! !
tomnln
"ShutterBun" <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:98a79959-e130-43f2...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 5, 7:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
I thought the "worst post ever" contest was over?
NO NO NO
We don't have your Real name YET ! ! !
Anthony Marsh
> On 5 Aug 2009 22:21:27 -0400, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is it true thay had a rifle that shot around corners too?
>
That they borrowed from the Army.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
>
cdddraftsman
This was adapted from a machine gun that the germans used in WW2 to fire
out the cupola of their tanks to ward off Soviet infantry who had the
nasty habit of climbing on board with 'Molotov Cocktails' which they would
throw down the engine compartment through the ventilation grills .
tl
timstter
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
Lord help us! It appears that tomnln is still a proponent of the
Umbrella Man theory, LOL!
Outside in the sun, it is 2009...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
"timstter" <tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ce2b1ea-2fec-4172...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 6, 12:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
Rob/Tim/Azcue wrote;
Lord help us! It appears that tomnln is still a proponent of the
Umbrella Man theory, LOL!
Outside in the sun, it is 2009...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I write;
I point it out because people like you have always Denied that the /CIA
had such a weapon in 1963.
I notice you were smart enough NOT to Deny it.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, other countries had such a gun. I thought his question was about a
US rifle and yes the US had one.
Peter Fokes
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ever try to open an automatic umbrella before getting out of your car
to avoid getting wet?
lol
Don't.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Thalia
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
Yes, I did. It is significant - don't let the cries of derision of the
Lone Nuts get to you. TUM's story is highly suspect.
Jas
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:82e223d2-ce24-4d2c...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
So, is the implication of this post saying, in so many words, that the
"Umbrella Man" shot Kennedy?
If not, fine. We already know the CIA had all kinds of fancy weapons and
consulted members of the mob in attempting to assassinate Castro, as well
as tied burning gasoline orbs to cat's tails and let them run through
Cuban sugar cane fields in order to destroy them; it would stand to
reason, then, that they could also have an umbrella gun.
After all, Max Smart had a shoe phone.
If the purpose is to resurrect the "Umbrella Man-shot-JFK-from-the-front
theory," or something similar occurring in Dealey Plaza on Nov 22, 1963,
forget about it, nothing proves this, therefore it didn't happen.
ShutterBun
> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
I won't bother asking for a cite for this (after all, it's CIA, so we
have no business trusting them, right?)
But it seems to me that an "umbrella gun" would most plausibly have
the shaft of the umbrella acting as a gun (or "dart") barrel. Am I
way off here?
tomnln
Yup, you sure are.
You'e "way off" on Everything pertaining to the JFK Assassination.
You're very wise in NOT asking for a Citation.
Because you know I can provide an official one.
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 5, 7:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
>
> I won't bother asking for a cite for this (after all, it's CIA, so we
> have no business trusting them, right?)
>
Well, what's so boring is to have newbies ask for documentation of
things we have all known for many years. I guess they don't have a
browser or can't figure out how to use a search engine. Look up Cutler TUM.
> But it seems to me that an "umbrella gun" would most plausibly have
> the shaft of the umbrella acting as a gun (or "dart") barrel. Am I
> way off here?
>
One umbrella weapon, the KGB version had a pellet shot out of the tip.
The umbrella weapon used by the CIA sent a dart out one of the ribs.
ShutterBun
> "ShutterBun" <shutter...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Then why dontcha? I assume you have something more official than a
passing reference made during the Church Committee hearings?
tomnln
Church Hearings Book I page 159-178.
Peter Fokes
Amazon.
We have 3 umbrellas. Not one fires poison darts, flechettes or ice
bullets. I have eradicated an insect or two with the pointy end of one
though.
Do they make bulletproof umbrellas?
In some areas of town, such an umbrella would be quite useful.
Cheerio,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
ShutterBun
I've SEEN Cutler's drawing. That is not "official documentation."
That is a "fanciful drawing." (as referenced in my later post)
Tom hints that he's he's got "official" documentation, but all he
provides is testimony from the Church Committee, which makes a single
passing reference to the fact that such a dart COULD be mounted in an
umbrella, and Bob Cutler's drawing. Whoopee.
tomnln
For "Detailed Testimony" (OFFICIAL) WHOOPPEE ! ! !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/extra_hsca_stuff.htm
Bottom of page
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm
Start with page 159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
>
> "ShutterBun" <shutt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5782b8c7-3593-4034...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 12, 3:07 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> ShutterBun wrote:
>> > On Aug 5, 7:21 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> Did you know that the cia had an Umbrella Weapon in '63?
>>
>> > I won't bother asking for a cite for this (after all, it's CIA, so we
>> > have no business trusting them, right?)
>>
>> Well, what's so boring is to have newbies ask for documentation of
>> things we have all known for many years. I guess they don't have a
>> browser or can't figure out how to use a search engine. Look up Cutler
>> TUM.
>>
>> > But it seems to me that an "umbrella gun" would most plausibly have
>> > the shaft of the umbrella acting as a gun (or "dart") barrel. Am I
>> > way off here?
>>
>> One umbrella weapon, the KGB version had a pellet shot out of the tip.
>> The umbrella weapon used by the CIA sent a dart out one of the ribs.
>
> I've SEEN Cutler's drawing. That is not "official documentation."
> That is a "fanciful drawing." (as referenced in my later post)
> Tom hints that he's he's got "official" documentation, but all he
> provides is testimony from the Church Committee, which makes a single
> passing reference to the fact that such a dart COULD be mounted in an
> umbrella, and Bob Cutler's drawing. Whoopee.
>
I thought you just wanted to know what such a weapon would look like and
how it would operate. Now you want to see the CIA's photo of their
umbrella weapon. Still classified. File an FOIA request. When I requested
a photo of the Destroyer they sent me a photo of a different weapon.
ShutterBun
> On 8/13/2009 2:05 PM, tomnln wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well golly, and I thought Tom could provide something official, per his
promise. I guess my initial skepticism was 100% warranted, then, yes?
P.S. Cutler's "idea" for the Umbrella Gun (which was obviously tailored by
him to fit "The Umbrella Man") is nothing short of ridiculous. How on
earth could anyone expect to hit a target a dozen or more yards away by
firing from an overhead barrel like that? In heavy wind, no less. And
gee, we can fit this M-1 dart into anything, from a fountain pen to a cane
to an umbrella. Which one should we choose for a sunny day in a crowded
area? Ah ha! The umbrella! Totally inconspicuous!
tomnln
Well golly, and I thought Tom could provide something official, per his
promise. I guess my initial skepticism was 100% warranted, then, yes?
P.S. Cutler's "idea" for the Umbrella Gun (which was obviously tailored by
him to fit "The Umbrella Man") is nothing short of ridiculous. How on
earth could anyone expect to hit a target a dozen or more yards away by
firing from an overhead barrel like that? In heavy wind, no less. And
gee, we can fit this M-1 dart into anything, from a fountain pen to a cane
to an umbrella. Which one should we choose for a sunny day in a crowded
area? Ah ha! The umbrella! Totally inconspicuous!
I write;
Looks like shutterbun MISSED the Testimony of Former CIA DIRECTOR William
Colby.
They even hid it in a Silver Dollar (Page 7)
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm
Looks like shutterbun MISSED the Testimony of the CIA Technician (Charles
Senseney) who INVENTED the Umbrella Weapon.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm (Start page 159)
ShutterBun Also MISSED These>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ShutterBun
You seem to have a habit of confusing the phrases "did not agree with
me" and "did not read this."
I had read the testimony, AND seen Cutler's drawing before this thread
even started. You hinted you had official documentation. I was
skeptical, but took the bait. You offered things I've already seen.
You seem to believe that I should be convinced by them. I'm not. But
I assure you: I've seen the drawing, and I've read the testimony.
(several times, by now)
And yes, I've seen your "case dismissed" section, too. You still
appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that individual pieces
of tampered/illicit/inadmissible evidence would get a case dismissed
in a court of law. I can assure you, you are mistaken about that.
Would certain pieces of evidence be excluded from being introduced at
trial? Certainly. Would any one of these (or indeed, the entire lot)
be grounds for a dismissal? Certainly not. (and this is generously
assuming that all of your "case dismissed" points are valid, which I
contend is not the case)
tomnln
ShutterBun wrote;
You seem to have a habit of confusing the phrases "did not agree with
me" and "did not read this."
I had read the testimony, AND seen Cutler's drawing before this thread
even started. You hinted you had official documentation. I was
skeptical, but took the bait. You offered things I've already seen.
You seem to believe that I should be convinced by them. I'm not. But
I assure you: I've seen the drawing, and I've read the testimony.
(several times, by now)
And yes, I've seen your "case dismissed" section, too. You still
appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that individual pieces
of tampered/illicit/inadmissible evidence would get a case dismissed
in a court of law. I can assure you, you are mistaken about that.
Would certain pieces of evidence be excluded from being introduced at
trial? Certainly. Would any one of these (or indeed, the entire lot)
be grounds for a dismissal? Certainly not. (and this is generously
assuming that all of your "case dismissed" points are valid, which I
contend is not the case)
I write;
Rather than just issue "Blanket Denials", why don't you produce
Official Documentation to prove me wrong.
Had you been this inquisitive of the Warren Commission,
Gerald Rudolph Ford would have died in Prison !
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/FORD.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Ok, I don't mind if you think the CIA was lying when they admitted they
had a poison dart umbrella. What you asked for was a photograph of it.
I'll say it again. You are not allowed to see it. You have no clearance
or need to know. I suggest that you file an FOIA request.
Anthony Marsh
Then why did the CIA make it and test it and find it accurate to 25 yards?
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4a85a46a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ShutterBun wrote;
>> And yes, I've seen your "case dismissed" section, too. You still
>> appear to be laboring under the misapprehension that individual pieces
>> of tampered/illicit/inadmissible evidence would get a case dismissed
>> in a court of law. I can assure you, you are mistaken about that.
>> Would certain pieces of evidence be excluded from being introduced at
>> trial? Certainly. Would any one of these (or indeed, the entire lot)
>> be grounds for a dismissal? Certainly not. (and this is generously
>> assuming that all of your "case dismissed" points are valid, which I
>> contend is not the case)
I write;
WHICH ones does your "Contention" wanna discuss?????
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Out of 23 issues, there MUST be several you wanna address before I ADD
MORE!
I offer you a Forum to Defend the Lies of the WCR ! ! !
---------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Marsh wrtote;
> Then why did the CIA make it and test it and find it accurate to 25 yards?
I write;
It was accurate up to 100 Meters (300 Feet)
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ShutterBun
> Ok, I don't mind if you think the CIA was lying when they admitted they
> had a poison dart umbrella. What you asked for was a photograph of it.
> I'll say it again. You are not allowed to see it. You have no clearance
> or need to know. I suggest that you file an FOIA request.
I don't think they were lying about it, but all they said was that it
"could" be placed in an umbrella. Granted, it's not an unreasonable leap
to conclude that this in fact had been done by them. My question is about
the design. It seems almost a given that the dart would fire out of the
tip, a la "The Penguin" from the old Bat-Man TV show. But since that
would rule out Witt as a dart-firing conspirator, Cutler came up with
(what I feel is a) totally impractical and counter- intuitive design.
The sheer ridiculousness of using a giant, unwieldy umbrella-gun to fire a
weapon that was (by itself) inconspicuous enough to be fired from a
fountain pen makes it unbelievable from the get-go. Why not just use a
rolled up newspaper or something?
Again, I don't disbelieve that the CIA could (and probably did) create an
umbrella poison dart gun thingy. I just reject Cutler's proposed design
for it, and for that reason (among MANY others) reject it as having been
employed in Dealey Plaza that day.
tomnln
I write;
Neither the Penguin nor, Batman were in Dealy Plaza on 11/22/63.
I already gave you TOTAL testimony of a former CIA Director.
All you offer is your "Opinion".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm
I already gave you TOTAL testimony of the CIA Technician who Invented the
Umbrella weapon.
All you offer is your "Opinion".
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/book_i.htm (Start page 159)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
> On Aug 14, 1:12 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Ok, I don't mind if you think the CIA was lying when they admitted they
>> had a poison dart umbrella. What you asked for was a photograph of it.
>> I'll say it again. You are not allowed to see it. You have no clearance
>> or need to know. I suggest that you file an FOIA request.
>
> I don't think they were lying about it, but all they said was that it
> "could" be placed in an umbrella. Granted, it's not an unreasonable leap
No, what they said is they designed an umbrella dart gun.
> to conclude that this in fact had been done by them. My question is about
> the design. It seems almost a given that the dart would fire out of the
> tip, a la "The Penguin" from the old Bat-Man TV show. But since that
No, it did not fire out of the tip.
> would rule out Witt as a dart-firing conspirator, Cutler came up with
> (what I feel is a) totally impractical and counter- intuitive design.
Cutler did not invent that. The CIA did.
> The sheer ridiculousness of using a giant, unwieldy umbrella-gun to fire a
> weapon that was (by itself) inconspicuous enough to be fired from a
> fountain pen makes it unbelievable from the get-go. Why not just use a
> rolled up newspaper or something?
>
Not conspicuous at all. The CIA and KGB did have weapons for a rolled up
newspaper, but they could only be used at extremely close range.
> Again, I don't disbelieve that the CIA could (and probably did) create an
> umbrella poison dart gun thingy. I just reject Cutler's proposed design
> for it, and for that reason (among MANY others) reject it as having been
> employed in Dealey Plaza that day.
>
Reject away. Never research.