But nobody here, not me in particular, said that it was a well known symbol of appeasement in Dallas (or anywhere in the US) at that time. So it's not surprising that only one person used it that way.
This appears contradict other your other posts.
Whatever the case, you now seem to agree that the umbrella was a weird and unusual thing to do which is evidenced by the fact that one single person decided to do it. Witt knew nothing of the Kennedy/umbrella connection, he just overheard someone mention it and that was good enough for him.
What makes Witt suspicious is not his use of the umbrella (that's more odd than suspicious), it's his testimony. Witt's HSCA testimony is hard to swallow. In it he states that as the motorcade is coming down Elm he is sat on the grass of the grassy knoll. He stands up, begins to walk forward whilst opening up his umbrella. As he is opening his umbrella he hears three or more shots (but doesn't recognise them as shot sat the time), and misses what is going on because he still hasn't opened his umbrella. By the time he gets his umbrella open he is aware of the limo slowing down, a Secret Service agent running towards the limo and "a pink movement...Jackie Kennedy, I think, wearing a pink dress or something."
However, Willis 5, thought to represent Zapruder frame 202, shows the umbrella clearly raised. This is way before the throat shot or the head shot:
Betzner 3 (z186) shows the umbrella already up in place even earlier. It's partially obscured but it is picked out by the red arrow below:
Witt goes on to state he never saw JFK hit, was unaware he'd been shot and was only aware that there had been slowing down of the limo and Hill running towards it. Yet he was aware "something terrible had happened" and was so stunned by what he'd not seen he had to sit down.
Witt claims to remember the limo slowing down and Hill running from one car to the other. This is the moment of the head shot, the moment JFK's head explodes yet Witt seems to have missed this detail. Strange, considering he'd made the effort to go out of his way to heckle JFK specifically.
The problem is that Willis 5 and Betzner 3 show UM already in position, umbrella raised and, I would argue, before a single shot has been fired.
His testimony appears to be a fabrication - this is what makes him suspicious.
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.
