Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[Sean Kneringer]

JFK fixing his hair with his hand after it was mussed by the wind.

[Jerry Freeman]

Wind Factor Dealey Plaza

NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963
Time Temp Direction Knots MPH
1155 63 WSW 13 15
 1230 W 13 15

The only thing windy around here are the critics ... that don't see anything dubious about anything unless it points to Lee Oswald and only Lee Oswald.
There are pictures/film clip of an umbrella being raised just as the limo goes by...just as shots are fired and right before the strike to the head [another incredibly remarkable coincidence] In the Witt testimony..I did not find him saying 'wind', 'buffeted' or blown around. I could have missed it maybe.

 https://weatherspark.com/h/m/8813/1963/11/Historical-Weather-in-November-1963-in-Dallas-Texas-United-States

[Michael T. Griffith]

This thread is just another sad example of the refusal of WC apologists to see what is so plainly obvious. Witt's account of his alleged actions markedly contradicts Umbrella Man's actions seen in the photographic evidence, not to mention that his account raises questions about his sentience and comprehension.

[Richard Smith]

This thread is just another sad example of the refusal of WC apologists to see what is so plainly obvious. Witt's account of his alleged actions markedly contradicts Umbrella Man's actions seen in the photographic evidence, not to mention that his account raises questions about his sentience and comprehension.

Or perhaps this demonstrates that human beings don't remember sudden, unexpected events with the same degree of precision as a film of the event.  There is not a scintilla of credible evidence to suggest this person had anything to do with the assassination.  Minor discrepancies in his recollection do not equate to his involvement in a conspiracy.  It also makes no narrative sense for the fantasy conspirators to have a person in the open waving around an umbrella and drawing such attention to himself that we are discussing it six decades later.  That is laughable.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Or perhaps this demonstrates that human beings don't remember sudden, unexpected events with the same degree of precision as a film of the event.  There is not a scintilla of credible evidence to suggest this person had anything to do with the assassination.  Minor discrepancies in his recollection do not equate to his involvement in a conspiracy.  It also makes no narrative sense for the fantasy conspirators to have a person in the open waving around an umbrella and drawing such attention to himself that we are discussing it six decades later.  That is laughable.

As we know, if you go back and read the accounts of many of the people in Dealey Plaza and compare those accounts with the films and photos you can see numerous examples of inconsistencies, of inaccuracies, of gaps in what they say versus what we can see. We don't have small cameras in our head recording things. Cameras that then play back what was recorded.

Jeanne Hill's "small dog" anyone? Zapruder said he saw the President grab himself as he was pretending to be shot. Read Clint Hill's description of his response versus what we see in the Z-film. He said he reacted after seeing JFK hit. But we see him standing in the Queen Mary after that shot. On and on.

Us "WC" apologists don't believe there was coordinated triangulated fire. We don't believe there is evidence of multiple sniper teams. We believe JFK was shot by one gunman firing from a location behind him. All of this - and more - contradicts this baseless idea that Witt was signalling a sniper team.

You can't examine Witt's action in isolation. You have to look at the totality of evidence. And that totality completely demolishes the idea that he was signalling a sniper team. But in conspiracy world, singling out one action is sufficient evidence indicating a conspiracy. Everything else that undermines that is ignored. We can also see this in this bizarre "prayer man" thread.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

This thread is just another sad example of the refusal of WC apologists to see what is so plainly obvious. Witt's account of his alleged actions markedly contradicts Umbrella Man's actions seen in the photographic evidence, not to mention that his account raises questions about his sentience and comprehension.

This wasn't the WC; this was the HSCA that came to the conclusion that Witt was not involved in the assassination. What the WC had to do with this issue is irrelevant.

You said in your original post that you rejected Witt's explanation that he waved the umbrellas as a political act, a heckling of JFK, because there was no evidence that the umbrella was used as a political symbol. And because of that, i.e., no evidence that it was used this way, his explanation was false.

Several posters have shown that the umbrella was indeed used as a political symbol, as a "heckle" of those who supported the appeasement policies of Chamberlain. People like Joe Kennedy Sr. LBJ, in fact, mentioned "umbrella man" in a criticism of JFK's father directly and JFK indirectly. Again "umbrella man." Another poster showed that some German students sent JFK umbrellas in protest for his perceived inaction after the Berlin Wall was put up. Et cetera, et cetera.

So do you still believe that there is no evidence/history of the umbrella being used as a political symbol or protest symbol? If you don't then your original claim mentioned above essentially falls apart.

Second, where we these sniper teams that Witt was signalling located? What is the evidence for them? Who said they saw sniper teams located around the Plaza? Could you flesh this out?

Third, who ordered Witt to do this? Where was the planning done? What is the evidence for him in doing this? Simply waving the umbrella?

What you've done here, frankly, is classic JFK conspiracy thinking. That is, find an odd piece of evidence and weave that into your preconceived conspiracy explanation. Based on little more than conjecture and supposition.

[John Iacoletti]

Where’s the evidence that Witt was even the umbrella man?

[Jerry Organ]

You said in your original post that you rejected Witt's explanation that it was a political act, a heckling of JFK, because there was no evidence that the umbrella was used as a political symbol. Because of that, i.e., no evidence that it was used this way, his explanation was false.

The Loons think it inconceivable that a conservative protestor living in Dallas at that time would be so extreme to show up with an umbrella to tie Kennedy to "appeasement" of international Communism.

"By early 1963, Dallas was the most singular city in America-it had become, without question, the roiling headquarters for the angry, absolutist resistance to John F. Kennedy and his administration.

A confederacy of like-minded men had coalesced in Dallas: the anti-Catholic leader of the largest Baptist congregation in America, the far-right media magnate who published the state's leading newspaper, the most ideologically extreme member of Congress, and the wealthiest man in the world-oilman H.L. Hunt. Together they formed the most vitriolic anti-Kennedy movement in the nation. And they began to attract others who were even more extreme to the city."

The American Prospect ( Link )

On the day of the assassination, there were the "Wanted for Treason" posters and newspaper ad. There was the "Impreach Earl Warren" billboard and Edwin Walker. The whole city probably thought all Easterners and West Coasters drank baby blood, lived in mansions and had Guatemalan illegals working free as house staff.