Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[James Hackerott]

Interesting animation. But is there an actual pumping action there? From the Zapruder film we see umbrella man lift up the umbrella as JFK approaches as if to make sure JFK saw it. So we have a movement of the umbrella up. But i'm not sure there is enough evidence to say he was moving it up and down in a pumping action. I just see him lift the umbrella up, which would be a natural thing to do if you wanted JFK to see the umbrella as part of a protest.

Gerry, my bad. I was wanting to show the difference in up/down umbrella positions from both Willis and Zapruder points of view. However, I left the animation in repeat mode (default for animations) which, unfortunately, showed a pumping motion that was not my intent. I do not see any evidence for what I would call a pumping motion in the Zapruder film. As such, my animation is more confusing than helpful. I will edit my post with these static frames without the animation.

[Dan O'meara]

I see no contradiction in my post since my links showed the origins of the term/symbol. Nowhere was there a claim by me or evidence in the links about how well known/popular the understanding of its symbolism was in Dallas in 1963. I have no idea what the Birchers in Dallas knew about the umbrella symbol at that time. By the way, how many Bircher supporters were there in Dallas at that time? 50? 100? 1000? Was Witt a Bircher? He doesn't seem to have been one. Opposing JFK didn't mean you were a right wing nutjob Bircher, right?

The other links showed - the one by Charles and the one quoting LBJ - that it was known by some people in 1963. Probably more in Europe than the US. LBJ used it to attack Joe Kennedy Sr. and indirectly JFK. The liberal wing of the party was opposed to JFK's nomination. They thought he was too young, too close to McCarthy and that his father - that liberals greatly disliked - had too much influence over him. They particularly disliked him because of his support for appeasement of Hitler. Thus the LBJ quote.

As to Witt: Look, if you want to see a conspiracy behind his act then there's nothing I can do here to dissuade you. My experience reasoning with JFK conspiracy believers is not a good one. I don't know which side is to blame although I have a guess. Witt gave his explanation. You can interpret it as evidence that his act was sinister or that it was, as he said, embarrassing.

As to Witt: Look, if you want to see a conspiracy behind his act then there's nothing I can do here to dissuade you. My experience reasoning with JFK conspiracy believers is not a good one.

I'm not seeing a conspiracy behind his act. Earlier in the thread I posted this, mocking the idea the umbrella was a signal for an assassin:

"What is also laughable is the notion this is being used as a signal for a shooter (or shooters) to fire/continue firing. I can just imagine the meeting when that was arranged - "An umbrella? But what if it's sunny?"

When you posted the article about Chamberlain's connection with the umbrella and the term Umbrella Man, I was convinced you had made a sound argument for the possibility that Witt's claim might have some veracity. Hardly the approach of a run-of-the-mill CTer.
But I have had exactly the same problem you complain about - whenever I've tried to reason with LNers over various aspects of the case that are problematic for their narrative the experience has not been a good one. The usual tactic being the one you have just used yourself - dump me in with the more extreme CT views and move on.

But the issue is Witt's testimony.
It's not a question of my interpretation of what he is saying. His testimony is flatly contradicted by the photographic/film record - that is a fact.
Witt has his umbrella fully raised before JFK is hit by any shot (it is my personal belief, based on extensive research, that his umbrella is raised before the first shot is even fired).
He even claims to have seen the limo slow down and Hill running towards it. This is the moment JFK's head explodes but he somehow misses this little detail.
Witt is either lying, has a truly catastrophic memory or he wasn't there.

[Jerry Organ]

But the issue is Witt's testimony.
It's not a question of my interpretation of what he is saying. His testimony is flatly contradicted by the photographic/film record - that is a fact.
Witt has his umbrella fully raised before JFK is hit by any shot (it is my personal belief, based on extensive research, that his umbrella is raised before the first shot is even fired).

Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.

He even claims to have seen the limo slow down and Hill running towards it. This is the moment JFK's head explodes but he somehow misses this little detail.
Witt is either lying, has a truly catastrophic memory or he wasn't there.

Or--since he was named by conspiracy loons as a Presidential assassin--Witt probably wanted to downplay his "number of shots I heard", "the spacing of shots seemed to me to be" and "I saw Kennedy react on such-and-such a shot" so as to dissuade further stalking by the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon. He might have heard about how other witnesses were being abused by Loons on such matters, and since he wasn't sure on those things, he choose to keep them to himself. One of those Republicans who don't like being told by the Government or strange individuals what to do.

Billy Lovelady had to move out of Parkland and many Parkland doctors complained about Loons trying to make them change their testimony to fit the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon Theory (ie: anybody-but-Oswald).

Witt produced the ten-rib umbrella and showed it did not contain a gun or "launcher". He explained why he was there as a protester and that he had some trouble when his umbrella was buffeted by the wind, as the Zapruder film shows it was. It's sad how the Loons have polluted the witness pool to the point of casting spurious suspicion on the honesty ("lying") and mental ability ("truly catastrophic memory") of witnesses like Witt who don't conform.

[Jerry Freeman]

Why does everybody still ignore the dark skinned walkie talkie man?
He is practically holding hands with TUM.



Perhaps they just don't wish to acknowledge the photo evidence?

Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.

There were gale force winds that day?

[Dan O'meara]

Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.

Or--since he was named by conspiracy loons as a Presidential assassin--Witt probably wanted to downplay his "number of shots I heard", "the spacing of shots seemed to me to be" and "I saw Kennedy react on such-and-such a shot" so as to dissuade further stalking by the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon. He might have heard about how other witnesses were being abused by Loons on such matters, and since he wasn't sure on those things, he choose to keep them to himself. One of those Republicans who don't like being told by the Government or strange individuals what to do.

Billy Lovelady had to move out of Parkland and many Parkland doctors complained about Loons trying to make them change their testimony to fit the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon Theory (ie: anybody-but-Oswald).

Witt produced the ten-rib umbrella and showed it did not contain a gun or "launcher". He explained why he was there as a protester and that he had some trouble when his umbrella was buffeted by the wind, as the Zapruder film shows it was. It's sad how the Loons have polluted the witness pool to the point of casting spurious suspicion on the honesty ("lying") and mental ability ("truly catastrophic memory") of witnesses like Witt who don't conform.

You need to read Witt's testimony.
He states he was putting the umbrella up when the shots were fired. He didn't see anything because the umbrella was in front of him while he was putting it up.
This is absolutely refuted by the film/photographic evidence.
How do you explain that?

[Jerry Freeman]

How do you explain that?

Also...explain the radio man.

[Gerry Down]

Also...explain the radio man.

Transistor radio? Probably was listening to the radio coverage of the motorcade. His enthusiastic wave as seen on the Zapruder film shows he was probably a JFK fan for his position on civil rights.

[Jerry Freeman]

Transistor radio? Probably was listening to the radio coverage of the motorcade. His enthusiastic wave as seen on the Zapruder film shows he was probably a JFK fan for his position on civil rights.

Well I concede that this is all entirely/conceivably possible. But why listen to news broadcasting when someone is actually there... live and beholding the event?
I mean come on...he was a witness to a homicide....so was umbrella dude but what did they do?---casually stroll away in opposite directions while most others were scurrying around and seemingly wanted to confront what happened.
Why didn't this "enthusiastic JFK fan" stick around and scrutinize the situation rather than dodge the area and seemingly slip away?



It looks like this guy could be speaking into a transistor radio? two-way radio...suspicious if so.