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 buffeting and movement of the umbrella is continuous and is first seen on the film at Z206, about 1/4 sec after Willis05 still slide. 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.
Witt says he saw "the motorcade" approach. To me, that means he saw Kennedy. Do you think Witt was looking at the X-100's grille and not Kennedy?
"Well, as I recall, the motorcade had already made the turn and was coming
down Elm Street going west on Elm before I became aware it was there,
and it would have been from a straightline position off to my left about like
this [indicating] when I saw it."
"The next thing I saw after I saw the car [the Presidential limousine] coming
down the street, down the hill to my left ..."
"Well, after I became aware of its presence [the Presidential limousine],
I got up and took the umbrella and started walking toward the street and
opening the umbrella at the same time."
"I saw it [the Presidential limousine] coming down on my left traveling west ..."
I mean, if Witt didn't see Kennedy coming down Elm, how would he know that was the moment to open the umbrella?
The point where Kennedy was shot in the neck I place in the low-Z220s. You know, where the Zapruder film shows the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.
Witt never said he didn't hear the cheering as the motorcade was on Houston. But he might have been like Zapruder, who thought the lead motorcycles meant the limousine was just behind. Zapruder then stopped filming until he actually saw the limousine. All Witt is saying is that the limousine was on Elm before he saw it ("it was traveling west at the time I saw it"). Witt couldn't see over to Houston Street because of the Elm Street slope.
So you hold your umbrella behind your back to release the catch and raise it? Must be quite a trick. Of course, Witt would have to hold the umbrella in front of him before he even raised it. You look down to release the catch and slide the umbrella up along the shaft.
As I told you, Witt mentions several times he saw the "motorcade" or "car" (meaning the Presidential limousine) come down Elm before he decided to open his umbrella. The Betzner and Willis photos can't speak to whether Witt is caught off-guard by the wind filling his umbrella and that he has to maintain control of it.
Kennedy is pass Witt's position, so why does Witt think Kennedy would see his umbrella? Witt could be looking towards the cars that followed the limousine to see if the local Texas politicians get the message. Or maybe his umbrella is being buffeted again. He looks towards the limousine in time to see Clint Hill make it to the rear bumper, which was post-headshot.
Witt might not have seen Hill "jump off" but assumed he did; where else would an agent had come from to be racing towards the limo's rear bumper if not from the Queen Mary followup car that Witt said was close to the limousine? Witnesses have been known to add little embellishments based on sound assumptions.
I'm sure you smell BS a lot where you're at.
Witt must have seen the President if he decided to walk towards some particular "car" and open his umbrella. Witt has to spell that out for you? And the Zapruder film shows the wind buffeting the umbrella just as Kennedy goes pass, so Witt could have been distracted. Witt didn't like Kennedy, he had seen enough of him to know he was approaching; maybe Witt felt self-conscious and at the last moment didn't want to stare down Kennedy.
You can't even keep track of the posts that address your points in this Topic thread.
PROBLEMS WITH THE "ORGAN BUFFETING THEORY"
In his HSCA testimony, Witt is crystal clear - when he first became aware of the motorcade coming down Elm he was sat on the grass. He stood up, began to move forward whilst opening his umbrella. As he was trying to open the umbrella it was in front of him obscuring his view.
Witt testifies that, as the umbrella was obscuring his view whilst he was opening it, at least three shots were fired. Because his view was obscured by the umbrella, Witt never saw JFK get shot. The very first thing he was aware of once the umbrella was up, was the limo slowing down and Clint Hill jumping from one vehicle to the next.
The problem with this testimony is that it is completely refuted by the film/photo record.
Witt states that the first thing he saw was the limo slowing down and Hill jumping off one vehicle and onto the other. This is the moment of the headshot at z312. However, in Willis5 (z202), we see the umbrella in the raised position, and UM has a clear LoS to the limo.
This is 6 seconds before the headshot.
Betzner3 shows the umbrella was in the raised position even earlier,at z186:
This is 7 seconds before the headshot!There is something seriously wrong with Witt's HSCA testimony.
And because of this massive discrepancy between Witt's testimony and the film/photo record, Jerry has felt compelled to introduce the "Organ Buffeting Theory". In this delightful fairy-tale the reason Witt's view is obscured is not due to him raising the umbrella but because the umbrella was buffeted by the wind.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Although Jerry has disingenuously insisted on a number of occasions that Witt mentioned the umbrella being buffeted by the wind - this is not true. Nowhere in his testimony does Witt mention the wind or buffeting or anything of that nature. This is purely Jerry's invention.
Witt is absolutely clear - his view is obscured as he puts the umbrella up. That's that.
In his post Jerry provides this helpful gif to demonstrate the perils of buffeting:
Please note that although the umbrella is being buffeted at no point is the lady's vision obscured.
The UM had an unobscured LoS to the limo at least seven seconds before Witt claims to have become aware of the action.
The umbrella was up before a single shot had been fired - in contrast with Witt's testimony where all three shots are fired while he is messing with the umbrella.
How can Witt's testimony be so different from the film/photo evidence?
It really is suspicious.
