Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[Dan O'meara]

Witt seems to be referring to missing the President being wounded during one of the moments when he was struggling with umbrella (the Zapruder film shows the umbrella being buffeted by the wind, just like Witt said).

You have clearly not read Witt's HSCA testimony yet you feel qualified to comment on it.
Firstly, nowhere in his testimony does he refer to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind. It's weird that you keep insisting he says that when you haven't read his testimony.

In the post you are responding to I pointed out a clear contradiction in Witt's testimony when compared to the film/photo record and asked you to explain it :

[Witt] 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?


You're "explanation" was meaningless in that you simply repeated the point I was making in my post but ignored the part about how it was refuted by the film/photo record:

Witt seems to be referring to missing the President being wounded during one of the moments when he was struggling with umbrella


Yes Gerry, he is referring to missing the President being wounded while he was struggling with his umbrella. The point being that in Willis5 (z202) and Betzner3 (z186) the umbrella is already in the raised position. These photos were taken before the President was wounded.
This is photographic evidence that Witt is not being truthful.
UM is stood in position with his umbrella raised before the President arrives at his position, before JFK is wounded.
If Witt's story has any credence, he is there to heckle JFK, his sole focus is JFK. UM is in position, umbrella raised, before the limo reaches him, as the limo reaches him he raises his umbrella (as shown in the Z-film). If this is indeed Witt, he must have been watching JFK as he came closer, at the moment JFK reached his position he raised his umbrella in order to heckle JFK.
The problem is, he must have seen JFK shot through the throat and then watched as JFK's head explodes.

But Witt doesn't see these things.
Witt testifies that he is sitting on the grass when he is first aware of the motorcade coming down Elm Street. He apparently doesn't hear the crowds cheering as it passes down Houston.
He stands and begins to walk forward, as he does he begins to open his umbrella.
For some unspecified reason he is having trouble putting up an umbrella.
As he holds it in front of him, it obscures his view and the shots ring out (although he is not aware of the shots).

"...At that time I was moving forward with this umbrella in front of me, I was not aware of what was happening, even though I had heard the shots, until the movement, all this activity with the cars. That was my first awareness, and it was at this point I just sat down."

The "activity with the cars" is a reference to the limo slowing down:

"...As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements: I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me. The next thing I saw...there was a car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things."


According to Witt he couldn't see anything because of the umbrella until the moment the limo slowed down and Hill jumped from one car to the next. This is patently not true for Umbrella Man. He is stood there, umbrella raised, with a clear view of JFK and the oncoming limo, way before it begins to slow down.
What's more, the moment Hill jumps from the follow-up car is the moment of the head-shot. JFK's head explodes but Witt doesn't see it. Really?
He sees Hill jump, he sees Jackie climbing onto the trunk but he doesn't see the head-shot?
Smells like  to me.

Elsewhere Witt says he saw the motorcade approach and pass him. He describes the slowing down of the limousine. I don't see where Witt said he never saw the President. Witt guesses he might have heard three shots but he didn't think they were gunfire at the time.

I'm not sure what this ramble is about but at no point have I ever said "Witt said he never saw the President."
It was a really weird thing for you to just blurt out.
But now you come to mention it, there is not a single mention of seeing JFK in his testimony. It was supposed to be the whole point of his visit to Dealey Plaza. In fact, there are two moments in his testimony that stand out in this regard:

"Mr. GENZMAN. Did President Kennedy see your umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I have no way of knowing. I really don't."

Why does Witt "have no way of knowing"?. If he was UM, and he was really there to heckle JFK, he would've been staring right at JFK.

After describing the limo slowing down Witt states:

"I recall there was a movement in the President's car. By this time-I don't recall seeing the President . He must have-I
am sure he was down."

Witt makes a point of saying he doesn't see the President but at no time, during the whole of his testimony, does he mention seeing the President.

You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting the mercenary character assassination of a fine Republican Goldwaterite.

Witt's testimony stinks.
If you'd read it you'd know.
You should be ashamed as a researcher.

[Jerry Freeman]

A review will show (Reply #98) that your claim about Bretzner and Willis was directly addressed. Still pictures won't show if the umbrella is being buffeted by the wind. The Zapruder film, however, does show exactly that. The wind raises up the umbrella, rotates it back-and-forth on its shaft and rocks the canopy towards the limousine and away from it.

Here is the whole film once again.....

One might notice that the flag on the limo is not really blowing around all that much.
Ladies skirts and dresses aren't moving in the wind either.
 

The wind raises up the umbrella

The wind? The wind raised up the umbrella and rotated it? So you didn't need a guy there ...just an umbrella

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The Presidential flag seems to be being whipped strongly by the wind. And it's mostly to do with the wind because the flag blows away from the line-of-travel. Some of the One-Percent flag is pinned by the same wind against the right-front fender. It lifts off the surface briefly and intermittently because the surface of the fender has air pressure built up from the wind. So it's not flapping freely in the air like Trump's comb-over.

Same flag pinned against fender earlier.

When flag became pinned against fender.

Presidential flag being whipped by the wind.

Sure, Skeptic-Tank.

The ladies seem to be leaning into the wind.

In Anybody-But-Oswald Land, there's no wind, just hot air.

The umbrella isn't being rotated by hand. The wind is making the canopy rotate back-and-forth on the shaft. The canopy also dips back-and-forth towards Zapruder, which seems unlikely for an umbrella under tight control. Witt might have contributed to the umbrella raising about then but he then had to struggle with the wind.

There is no evidence - for me - that a team of snipers shot JFK using coordinated triangulated fire. None. The evidence for me is that JFK was shot by one person firing in a location behind him. No multiple sniper teams, no coordinated fire.

So who was Witt or "umbrella man" coordinating? Where did this supposed triangulated fire come from? Where did Witt/UM get his orders? Where is the evidence he was a "cog" in this conspiracy machine? Because he flapped an umbrella? And because his account of what he did and saw - as with many witnesses in Dealey Plaza - is not corroborated by films and photos? Many witnesses gave accounts of what they remembered seeing or doing that are wrong. Our memories are not little cameras that accurately record everything.

This is typical conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy first and then search for evidence, real or imagined, of the conspiracy. A guy waving an umbrella is not some guy doing goofy things; no it's a signal.

[Sean Kneringer]

If Witt was part of a conspiracy, why would he voluntarily come forward and subject himself to a barrage of questions that could expose him?

[Jerry Freeman]

A guy waving an umbrella.. it's a signal.

Would someone want to bet that it has never happened before?

The Presidential flag seems to be being whipped strongly by the wind.

Naturally...the car is moving. The ladies loose skirts and dresses are not moving even slightly. Argue that [most likely will]

If Witt was part of a conspiracy, why would he voluntarily come forward and subject himself to a barrage of questions that could expose him?

  No one here has claimed that Witt was a conspirator in the assassination.
 

[Jerry Freeman]

Wind blowing open Hill's and Moorman's heavy fall coats.

Now you weighed their coats? 
You are out on strikes [I gave you 4] with the wind buffeting the umbrella.
 There is still not enough to demonstrate it taking off like a kite...sorry.
The film shows it rising perfectly upward as a wounded [not yet destroyed] JFK goes by.
Your TUM remains suspiciously suspicious.

[Richard Smith]

There is no evidence - for me - that a team of snipers shot JFK using coordinated triangulated fire. None. The evidence for me is that JFK was shot by one person firing in a location behind him. No multiple sniper teams, no coordinated fire.

So who was Witt or "umbrella man" coordinating? Where did this supposed triangulated fire come from? Where did Witt/UM get his orders? Where is the evidence he was a "cog" in this conspiracy machine? Because he flapped an umbrella? And because his account of what he did and saw - as with many witnesses in Dealey Plaza - is not corroborated by films and photos? Many witnesses gave accounts of what they remembered seeing or doing that are wrong. Our memories are not little cameras that accurately record everything.

This is typical conspiracy thinking. Conspiracy first and then search for evidence, real or imagined, of the conspiracy. A guy waving an umbrella is not some guy doing goofy things; no it's a signal.

There is also no apparent purpose or need for any such person even in a scenario where there were multiple shooters.  The motorcade was clearly visible to any sniper in Dealey Plaza.  They wouldn't need someone to wave around an umbrella (drawing such attention that we are still discussing it six decades later) at the last moment.  That is completely absurd.  Anyone who believes this action was somehow related to a conspiracy is beyond reason.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

There is also no apparent purpose or need for any such person even in a scenario where there were multiple shooters.  The motorcade was clearly visible to any sniper in Dealey Plaza.  They wouldn't need someone to wave around an umbrella (drawing such attention that we are still discussing it six decades later) at the last moment.  That is completely absurd.  Anyone who believes this action was somehow related to a conspiracy is beyond reason.

What's the evidence again for these multiple sniper teams?

So the idea - again - is that these powerful groups secretly (somehow; nobody said no?) conspired to shoot JFK in broad daylight in the middle of a crowded street/location with many people carrying cameras and recording the event. And the followup cars in the motorcade had numerous reporters - several with cameras also recording the conspiracy. These reporters and spectators were all over the scene of the crime. Filming things, watching things. Things such as multiple sniper teams roaming about the Plaza (?).

Is this how you pull off the crime of the American century? Really? Like this? Do you want to get caught? Make it as complex as possible?

Vincent Salandria and Jim Garrison argued that this overt plan was done on purpose: it was sending a message to the public that "we" are in charge here and we'll do what we damned want to do. So the absurdity of killing JFK this way - and risking exposure - is really evidence not that it wasn't done but evidence that it was done.

Nuts, just nuts.