No. Neville Chamberlain was very much associated with the umbrella. He was often seen carrying on in photographs. In political cartoons he was often shown with an umbrella. After the Munich Agreement, which sold out Czechoslovakia, but was initially seen as a great success in Britain, Chamberlain received many umbrellas in the mail as gifts from his well-wishers. And after the umbrella became the main symbol of Appeasement and Joseph Kennedy, the U. S. Ambassador to Great Britain was associated with Appeasement and so it could be used as a symbol for any Kennedy, I suppose.
Remember, in 1963, 1938 was only 25 years in the past. 1938 was no more remote in the past then 1997 is today. People would remember Chamberlain as well as we remember Bill Clinton. And Joseph Kennedy’s association with him.
In America, Chamberlain was not "very much associated" with the umbrella. Louie Witt was 14/15 years old when Chamberlain and Joe Kennedy appeased Hitler. Furthermore, Witt said in his HSCA testimony that until he allegedly spoke with a coworker, he had no clue that the umbrella had anything to do with Chamberlain or Joseph Kennedy. Go read his testimony.
When Witt was pressed on this point, he said he just knew the "vague generalities" that it had "something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to England."
When asked to provide more detail about what he thought the umbrella would symbolize, he said that during a coffee break at work "someone" had told him that "It had something to do with . . . when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler."
Conveniently, Witt could not remember who the "someone" was, where at work this conversation occurred, or even how the subject came up.
Witt's testimony contains some other odd statements. He claimed that after he arrived at the grassy knoll, he did not realize the motorcade was coming until after it had turned onto Elm Street and was coming toward him: "the motorcade had already made the turn and was coming down Elm Street going west on Elm before I became aware it was there." He didn't hear or see the motorcade as it turned from Main Street onto House Street and then drove down Houston Street?! Really? Really? Humm, was he in a daze or something?
Another oddity: Witt said he heard shots but didn't realize they were shots because "they were so close together" that they sounded like a "string of firecrackers." He said that "somehow" the shots didn't register with him as being shots. So we're supposed to believe that he had no clue that any shots had been fired until later that day. Really? As he kept testifying, he gave critical thinkers reasons to doubt this claim.
Incredibly, Witt claimed that he did not even realize that JFK had been shot, that he only learned that JFK had been shot later on! But Witt then contradicted himself and said that the dark complected man sitting next to him told him "they done shot them folks," and that a few seconds later a woman told him "They shot those people right before my eyes."
Uh, okay. So Witt supposedly heard louds sounds, felt that "something terrible" had happened, had a man tell him seconds after the shooting that "they done shot them folks," and had a woman tell him seconds later that "they shot those people right before my eyes," but he did not realize that JFK had been shot until later that day. If Witt was actually there, you truly have to wonder about his sentience, his powers of observation, his comprehension of reality.
I know you gobble up his nonsensical story without question, but rational people will wonder whether someone would really bother to use an umbrella on a sunny day to annoy JFK as he's riding by in a limo after a coworker claimed that holding an umbrella would annoy JFK. Rational people will also find it hard to believe that Witt had no idea that JFK had been shot until later that day. I mean, come on.
And, I agree with those who find it a little hard to swallow that Witt had kept that same umbrella for 15 years.
I agree with Russ Baker's analysis of Witt's story:
Only a very unusual 15-year-old American (Witt’s approximate age in 1938) would have strong feelings about a British prime minister’s behavior, and still harbor those feelings a quarter century later. It is even harder to accept that he could believe JFK, himself a young man in 1938, might “get” the message somehow via the umbrella.I agree. It makes no sense whatsoever. It smacks of being a contrived story to provide some explanation, any explanation, for the presence and actions of Umbrella Man.
As Gerry Down pointed out, the “pumping action is not clear in the Zapruder film. It is shown very clearly in animations, but not in the film itself.
What is the best version of the Zapruder film (and not an animation) that clearly shows the umbrella being pumped?
DCM does not thrust his fist up into the air. In frame 228, he clearly has his hand extended, like he is waving.
I guess DCM sat down on the curb with the radio or walkie-talkie still in his back pocket.
Actually, Umbrella Man and DCM might not have seen JFK’s head explode.
It appears none of the witnesses along the street, reacted in anyway, or realized any shots had been fired, until the result of the z312 head shot. And then, only if they were looking at JFK at the time. We don’t know if Umbrella Man and DCM were still looking at z312. The limousine by then was 75 feet past them. Jean Hill looked away from the limousine as soon as it passed her, to look at the other limousines and celebrities, I assume. In any case, she looked away. Umbrella Man and DCM may have done the same.
If so, it seems logical that they might observe others reacting strangely and decide to sit down and compare notes to try to figure out what had just happened.
In general, you need to provide a link to the best film, or best photograph, that shows the things you claim are in the Zapruder film. The Umbrella being ‘pumped’. A fist in the air. A radio in the back pocket.
Your description of the events in the Zapruder film is another example of your seemingly habitual distortion.
Russ Baker's enlargement seems to show that the DCM's fist is clinched while in the air--he certainly does not appear to be "waving":
https://whowhatwhy.org/video/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/Uh, yeah, you can sit on a curb with a small radio in your back pocket.
Whatever you want to choose to see about Umbrella Man's actions, he clearly does not appear to be "fiddling with the umbrella, trying to get it open." Give me a break. Had he never opened an umbrella before? It's a pretty easy, simple, quick thing to do. Anyway, Umbrella man is definitely not "fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open." See the enlargements in Baker's article and in Ecker's article:
https://whowhatwhy.org/video/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/http://www.ronaldecker.com/umbrella.htmlUmbrella Man can be seen in photos taken by Willis, Bothun, and Bond, and in several Z frames. The umbrella is open in all the photos/frames before Z313. At no time does Umbrella Man appear to be trying to open the umbrella, much less "fiddling" with it. Witt's problematic description of his alleged actions is simply incompatible with the photographic record.
What's more, who would sit down right next to a stranger on the curb under any circumstances? Why would anyone do that? Unless, of course, you were not strangers.
