What's more, Witt's descriptions of his actions do not match the actions that we see Umbrella Man doing in the Zapruder film. Witt claimed he was just fiddling with the umbrella while trying to open it, but that is not at all what we see in the Z film. In the Z film, Umbrella Man holds his umbrella in the air and pumps it.
Until very recently, I had always ignored the issue of Umbrella Man. I've never written a word about him in any of my articles or books. However, now that I've done some research on the matter, I find his actions suspicious and do not believe Louie Witt's story.
Witt's story that the umbrella was intended to protest the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and secondarily by JFK's father is absurd on its face. For starters, the umbrella was never considered to be a symbol of Chamberlain.
What's more, Witt's descriptions of his actions do not match the actions that we see Umbrella Man doing in the Zapruder film. Witt claimed he was just fiddling with the umbrella while trying to open it, but that is not at all what we see in the Z film. In the Z film, Umbrella Man holds his umbrella in the air and pumps it.
Another odd figure on the grassy knoll was the dark complected man (DCM). As the limo passes and while Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella, DCM thrusts his fist up into the air.
Strangely, Umbrella Man and DCM, presumably strangers, instead of reacting with apparent horror or shock, sit down together on the curb and appear to calmly survey the scene.
In addition, enlargements of footage/photos that show DCM clearly seem to show something that looks like a radio or walkie-talkie protruding from his back pocket.
I've never seen this pumping action. I wish someone would do a gif of what they claim is a pumping action on the Zapruder film. From what I can see, the umbrella is visible for too short a time on the Zapruder film to be able to make out any pumping action.Hi Gerry,
Until very recently, I had always ignored the issue of Umbrella Man. I've never written a word about him in any of my articles or books. However, now that I've done some research on the matter, I find his actions suspicious and do not believe Louie Witt's story.
Witt's story that the umbrella was intended to protest the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and secondarily by JFK's father is absurd on its face. For starters, the umbrella was never considered to be a symbol of Chamberlain.
What's more, Witt's descriptions of his actions do not match the actions that we see Umbrella Man doing in the Zapruder film. Witt claimed he was just fiddling with the umbrella while trying to open it, but that is not at all what we see in the Z film. In the Z film, Umbrella Man holds his umbrella in the air and pumps it.
Another odd figure on the grassy knoll was the dark complected man (DCM). As the limo passes and while Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella, DCM thrusts his fist up into the air.
Strangely, Umbrella Man and DCM, presumably strangers, instead of reacting with apparent horror or shock, sit down together on the curb and appear to calmly survey the scene.
In addition, enlargements of footage/photos that show DCM clearly seem to show something that looks like a radio or walkie-talkie protruding from his back pocket.
What does that have to do with the Umbrella Man?
All that is gold does not glitter. But all those who wander with false claims are lost.
No snipers would have their eyes on two other guys, while they waited for a signal to shoot. They would be totally locked on their target and choosing their moment to fire themselves.
One guy waving, the other jiggling his (sun-shield) umbrella as a way of waving hello.
It's likely he was signaling the spotters and not the shooters.
The spotters?
I think that you're on the right track, Michael.... I've long believed that the umbrella was a reminder to JFK that he left the brigade with no aircover when he pulled the "Umbrella of air cover" for the Cubans who were trying to gain a foothold at Bay Of Pigs. Those Cuban's who were under the control of the CIA blamed JFK for their failure and capture by Castro's forces. It wasn't JFK's fault at all....The CIA was to blame for the failure...but they wouldn't accept the responsibility, and placed the blame on JFK. John Kennedy being the kind of man he was accepted the blame....( He felt that If it happened on his watch, he was responsible ) The red rings on the Windows of the TSBD were also there to remind JFK that he had betrayed the CIA trained Cuban exiles who were ashore at red beach , and needed the aircover that the CIA had promised them that JFK would provide.
Yes spotters. Most likely they were the communications and kept people at bay for the shooters.
Until very recently, I had always ignored the issue of Umbrella Man. I've never written a word about him in any of my articles or books. However, now that I've done some research on the matter, I find his actions suspicious and do not believe Louie Witt's story.There's a long documented history of Neville Chamberlain being called "umbrella man" and the umbrella being considered a symbol of his appeasement and appeasement in general. Do a simple search: "Neville Chamberlain and umbrella." You'll get lots of hits explaining the meaning.
Witt's story that the umbrella was intended to protest the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and secondarily by JFK's father is absurd on its face. For starters, the umbrella was never considered to be a symbol of Chamberlain.
What's more, Witt's descriptions of his actions do not match the actions that we see Umbrella Man doing in the Zapruder film. Witt claimed he was just fiddling with the umbrella while trying to open it, but that is not at all what we see in the Z film. In the Z film, Umbrella Man holds his umbrella in the air and pumps it.
Another odd figure on the grassy knoll was the dark complected man (DCM). As the limo passes and while Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella, DCM thrusts his fist up into the air.
Strangely, Umbrella Man and DCM, presumably strangers, instead of reacting with apparent horror or shock, sit down together on the curb and appear to calmly survey the scene.
In addition, enlargements of footage/photos that show DCM clearly seem to show something that looks like a radio or walkie-talkie protruding from his back pocket.
This ranks up there with the red rings fairy tale. Do you really think JFK would see an umbrella in the crowd and think to himself this is a "reminder" of the "umbrellas of air cover" at the Bay of Pigs? HA HA HA HA HA. Comedy gold. I truly hope you don't believe this tin foil hat nonsense. But I can't resist playing along. Why would your fantasy conspirators want to "remind" him of this event just moments before killing him?
There's a long documented history of Neville Chamberlain being called "umbrella man" and the umbrella being considered a symbol of his appeasement and appeasement in general....
Spotters for what? Anyone in Dealey Plaza could see and hear the motorcade as it approached but the fantasy conspirators need someone conspicuous to stand out in the open and bring attention to himself? Unreal. Again, I hope no one actually takes this seriously and are just passing the time with a game of make up a good story because this is Bigfoot and ghost hunter territory.The "hobbyists" are one thing; the "true believers" are a another. It's this latter group - the followers of the disgraceful and deranged Jim Garrison - that can cause problems. The Stone movies, the movie about the Paines. People believe these falsehoods.
Again, I hope no one actually takes this seriously and are just passing the time...No one ever takes you seriously.
The "hobbyists" are one thing; the "true believers" are a another. It's this latter group - the followers of the disgraceful and deranged Jim Garrison - that can cause problems. The Stone movies, the movie about the Paines. People believe these falsehoods. It's remarkable that Jim Garrison, the most irresponsible JFK conspiracist of them all, the person who was denounced by the others, e.g., Meagher, Lifton, Lane, Weisberg, as a fraud, has emerged as the leader of this cause.What are you babbling about? How do we know you're not 'deranged'?
When the Berlin Wall was constructed in 1961 and President Kennedy did not send American troops to tear it down, German students, as well as many Americans, sent him umbrellas.[5]Good catch. Just do a simple google/search on "Chamberlain and umbrella" and you'll come up with lots of hits on stories that associated the umbrella with appeasement. It became a symbol for the policy. And the man.
[5] Thomas G. Paterson, Kennedy’s Quest for Victory: American Foreign Policy, 1961–1963 (Oxford University Press, 1989), 42.
http://histsociety.blogspot.com/2013/11/umbrella-man.html (http://histsociety.blogspot.com/2013/11/umbrella-man.html)
Jim Garrison: "JFK was killed in a homosexual thrill kill by Lee Oswald, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw."
If you think that's not evidence of derangement then I think you need to reconsider things.
So you think that All CT's are followers of Garrison? CT's are individuals, and not a gang of suckers who believe what ever the US Govt tells them.As I wrote (again): "The "hobbyists" are one thing; the "true believers" are a another. It's this latter group - the followers of the disgraceful and deranged Jim Garrison - that can cause problems. The Stone movies, the movie about the Paines. People believe these falsehoods."
Jim Garrison: "JFK was killed in a homosexual thrill kill by Lee Oswald, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw." If you think that's not evidence of derangement then I think you need to reconsider things.Garrison was wrong about stuff. That doesn't necessarily mean that he was deranged [obcessed perhaps] He was convinced that the the truth had not been disclosed concerning the assassination.
No one ever takes you seriously.
You apparently are suspicious of nothing and not even very suspicious of that....
...and just passinggastime.
What are you babbling about? How do we know you're not 'deranged'?
Even if that was the guy's aim with the umbrella on Dealey Plaza, I can't see any credible relevance to the assassination.I think he was just doing, as he said, some heckling of JFK.
Here's one of the many ridiculous CT notions that will not die - Chamberlain was famous for his umbrella!
In the '30's a staggering amount of male, middle/upper class professionals carried an umbrella. The uniform of the "city gent" was a bowler hat and umbrella. Umbrellas were everywhere, it's like saying Chamberlain was famous for wearing trousers.
Well, I think yes and no. The umbrella became a political symbol of Chamberlain's appeasement. As I noted above, there was a very influential book written in 1940 - "Guilty Men" - that denounced 15 British noted figures for their support of the failed policy of appeasement of Hitler. Chamberlain was specifically called "Umbrella Man" in a chapter and elsewhere.
Here's an excerpt from the piece linked below: "Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella was ubiquitous during the Munich Crisis and in its aftermath, as material object, as commodity, and as political emblem that came to represent the temperament and character of the “Man of Peace” who had brought relief to the world by striking a “gentleman’s peace” with Hitler on 30 September, 1938. This culminated in the damning portrayal of the Prime Minister as the “Umbrella Man” in ‘Cato’s’ Guilty Men (1940).
Full piece here: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/101366/3/Chamberlain%27sUmbrellaArticle2ndRevisions.pdf
LBJ used the very phrase - "umbrella man" - in his campaign against JFK. He was referring to Joe Kennedy Sr. and his support of that policy.
I don't know how John Simkins, a British historian, couldn't know the history of the term. As I said above, the book "Guilty Men" was reportedly very influential during the period in question.
Spotters for what? Anyone in Dealey Plaza could see and hear the motorcade as it approached but the fantasy conspirators need someone conspicuous to stand out in the open and bring attention to himself? Unreal. Again, I hope no one actually takes this seriously and are just passing the time with a game of make up a good story because this is Bigfoot and ghost hunter territory.
Until very recently, I had always ignored the issue of Umbrella Man. I've never written a word about him in any of my articles or books. However, now that I've done some research on the matter, I find his actions suspicious and do not believe Louie Witt's story.
Witt's story that the umbrella was intended to protest the appeasement of Hitler by Neville Chamberlain and secondarily by JFK's father is absurd on its face. For starters, the umbrella was never considered to be a symbol of Chamberlain.
What's more, Witt's descriptions of his actions do not match the actions that we see Umbrella Man doing in the Zapruder film. Witt claimed he was just fiddling with the umbrella while trying to open it, but that is not at all what we see in the Z film. In the Z film, Umbrella Man holds his umbrella in the air and pumps it.
Another odd figure on the grassy knoll was the dark complected man (DCM). As the limo passes and while Umbrella Man is pumping his umbrella, DCM thrusts his fist up into the air.
Strangely, Umbrella Man and DCM, presumably strangers, instead of reacting with apparent horror or shock, sit down together on the curb and appear to calmly survey the scene.
In addition, enlargements of footage/photos that show DCM clearly seem to show something that looks like a radio or walkie-talkie protruding from his back pocket.
I think he was just doing, as he said, some heckling of JFK.
This is from his testimony:
Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?
Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.
Mr. GENZMAN, How had you gotten this idea?
Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.
Mr. GENZMAN. Are you saying you were going to use the umbrella as a symbol for the purpose of heckling?
Mr. WITT. I think that would cover it.
The Kennedys - specifically Joe Sr. - were often accused of supporting the appeasement policies of Chamberlain. LBJ took a shot at them during his campaign. I think this was all that he was doing.
But too many conspiracists - not all - can't see any innocent acts in this. Everything for them has sinister purposes. It's a mindset, a worldview, a view of "the government" and "the CIA" and "the deep state" as being behind all sorts of things. Yes, sometimes that is true; but sometimes it's not.
I think that you're on the right track, Michael.... I've long believed that the umbrella was a reminder to JFK that he left the brigade with no aircover when he pulled the "Umbrella of air cover" for the Cubans who were trying to gain a foothold at Bay Of Pigs. Those Cuban's who were under the control of the CIA blamed JFK for their failure and capture by Castro's forces. It wasn't JFK's fault at all....The CIA was to blame for the failure...but they wouldn't accept the responsibility, and placed the blame on JFK. John Kennedy being the kind of man he was accepted the blame....( He felt that If it happened on his watch, he was responsible ) The red rings on the Windows of the TSBD were also there to remind JFK that he had betrayed the CIA trained Cuban exiles who were ashore at red beach , and needed the aircover that the CIA had promised them that JFK would provide.
Do you really think JFK would see an umbrella in the crowd and think to himself this is a "reminder" of the "umbrellas of air cover" at the Bay of Pigs?
What I think is irrelevant ......
I suspect that he may not be "quite right"After seeing reply 33...I am inclined to agree.
This was a professional hit with teams. When Joe Smith ran up the grassy knoll he encountered a Secret Service agent who wasn't assigned behind the picket fence. These teams had roles and assignments and a spotter to make this went smoothly. It's amateur hour the way you think the Assassination went down.
I don't think it would have occurred to JFK in a million years that the pumping umbrella represented his refusal to provide air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion force.
It is debatable that JFK refused to provide air cover. The story is much more complex than most history books paint it as being. It should be noted that the initial reports on the first air strike said it had been mostly successful, that it had destroyed almost all of Castro's air force--those reports were false. But, perhaps with these reports in mind, and concerned about plausible deniability and the uproar that the first raid had caused, President Kennedy probably felt it was both safe and prudent to cancel the second air attack. Nevertheless, when subsequent events proved that the first raid had not destroyed enough of Castro's air power, Kennedy reauthorized a second air strike. It was scheduled for Sunday night, April 17. Unfortunately, there was a thick cloud cover that night, which made it impossible to carry out the raid. Moreover, after it became apparent that too many of Castro's planes had survived, JFK authorized the B-26s to bomb at will, and on the afternoon of the invasion one bombing raid destroyed an entire battalion of Castro's forces.
Again, a "spotter" for what? It seems like if someone was trying to pull off an assassination in broad daylight they would try to be as inconspicuous as possible instead of waving an umbrella around and drawing attention to themselves. That's ridiculous. JFK (the target) was clearly visible in an open car to anyone (the whole point of the motorcade through Dallas) and the motorcade made a lot of noise as it approached. No "spotter" would be required to signal anything.
It is debatable that JFK refused to provide air cover.
Yes, I agree....And I don't believe that JFK ever told the CIA handlers that he would provide air cover for the brigade, but the CIA handlers lied to the Cuban exiles and told them that JFK would provide air cover for them....
The story is much more complex than most history books paint it as being.
Totally agree, Mr Griffith....
And it's the subject for a different thread.... But I believe the bottom line is: ....The Cubans believed there CIA handlers and believed that JFK had promised them an "air umbrella" to prevent Castro's air force from attacking them. Of course Castro's lone fighter plane strafed them at will and many of the brigade were killed.... Those Cubans blamed JFK for reneging on his promise ( non existent) and they hated him.
I'd really like to tie this into the red rings on the windows of the TSBD and the waving of the umbrella just before JFK was murdered...... But as you've said, it's a very complex story and it would require a complete book the size of the WR ....
All that is gold does not glitter. But all those who wander with false claims are lost.
What does that have to do with the Umbrella Man?
. . .
But the chances that someone [the only known one in Dallas] sets out with an umbrella to heckle... and winds up standing right next to the limo just as Kennedy gets his head blown off must be astounding. Then he just "drifts along" for years with [utter] disinterest in the events of the man he had set off to heckle....Yeah...What is so sinister about that?
AGAIN I'm talking about Dark Complected Man. His fist raised to let spotters know he was still alive. Spotters see the signal and communicate to others it's still on. So the shooters are going to know from different areas of the target zone if he was mortally hit? Instead they continue to shoot until mission is aborted.
AGAIN I'm talking about Dark Complected Man. His fist raised to let spotters know he was still alive. Spotters see the signal and communicate to others it's still on. So the shooters are going to know from different areas of the target zone if he was mortally hit? Instead they continue to shoot until mission is aborted.
We are in agreement on this point.
I don't think it would have occurred to JFK in a million years that the pumping umbrella represented his refusal to provide air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion force.
It is debatable that JFK refused to provide air cover. The story is much more complex than most history books paint it as being. It should be noted that the initial reports on the first air strike said it had been mostly successful, that it had destroyed almost all of Castro's air force--those reports were false. But, perhaps with these reports in mind, and concerned about plausible deniability and the uproar that the first raid had caused, President Kennedy probably felt it was both safe and prudent to cancel the second air attack. Nevertheless, when subsequent events proved that the first raid had not destroyed enough of Castro's air power, Kennedy reauthorized a second air strike. It was scheduled for Sunday night, April 17. Unfortunately, there was a thick cloud cover that night, which made it impossible to carry out the raid. Moreover, after it became apparent that too many of Castro's planes had survived, JFK authorized the B-26s to bomb at will, and on the afternoon of the invasion one bombing raid destroyed an entire battalion of Castro's forces.
I'm not an LNer, but that is nonsense. As I said, the shooter(s) would have been totally locked on their target 100%. They would have been able to see themselves that Kennedy slumped to the side - i.e. hit. Shots fired. Disappear.The concept could have been...were more shots absolutely necessary?
what’s the odds of the one guy out of all the crowd who even has an umbrella, raising that umbrella 1 sec before the z224 shot is fired? And right at that location too?
What’s the odds the umbrella man sits down right beside the only other man in same proximity to the JFK limo, DC man, who also raised his hand and moved towards t he limo right before Z224 shot?
What’s the odds BOTH of these men were completely ignored by FBI,SS,DPD officers questioning everyone else?
What’s the odds both men seem to disappear , one for 15 tears and the other never to be found again?
What’s the odds the guy with the umbrella whom THOUSANDS of media articles and news shows have disclosed over 15years, is “unaware” of such information?
What’s the odds that DC man would have remained obscure and never present himself to clear up all the suspicion about himself?
the actions of both umbrella man and DC man capture the attention of nearly all the SS men riding in follow up limo just preceding the z224 shot.
Thank you...so you too think it's what the assassins thought is what is relevant.....
The majority of Dallas County back then was Republican. There were John Birch Society guys Minute Men..Klan...what have you... Guys with hand bills that said Wanted for Treason with Kennedy's picture all over town that day.
The umbrella became a "lightening-rod for critics of appeasement" and "morphed from useful trademark into an embarrassing symbol of political weakness and pusillanimity."
The majority of Dallas County back then was Republican. There were John Birch Society guys Minute Men..Klan...what have you... Guys with hand bills that said Wanted for Treason with Kennedy's picture all over town that day.
With this so called "lightning rod" stuff being portrayed...there then should have been hundreds or even thousands of umbrellas along the parade right?
False premise. Texas and most of the South in the 1960s were governed by Democrats. JFK won Texas in 1960. Of course, LBJ and John Connally were Dems. It was the handful of Southern Dems who held up Civil Rights legislation fot almost 100 years.
The majority of Dallas County back then was Republican. There were John Birch Society guys Minute Men..Klan...what have you... Guys with hand bills that said Wanted for Treason with Kennedy's picture all over town that day.
With this so called "lightning rod" stuff being portrayed...there then should have been hundreds or even thousands of umbrellas along the parade right?
False premise. Texas and most of the South in the 1960s were governed by Democrats. JFK won Texas in 1960. Of course, LBJ and John Connally were Dems. It was the handful of Southern Dems who held up Civil Rights legislation fot almost 100 years.
False premise. Texas and most of the South in the 1960s were governed by Democrats. JFK won Texas in 1960. Of course, LBJ and John Connally were Dems. It was the handful of Southern Dems who held up Civil Rights legislation fot almost 100 years.If my premise.....
The majority of Dallas County back then was Republican.is false then how come I can prove what I had claimed? I am well aware that JFK won in Texas so why all your gaslighting?
This is actually a really good point.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. My posts were in response to the original poster, Michael Griffith, and his claim that it was "absurd" that anyone would use the umbrella as a symbol for anything in protest (as Witt claimed). He said he never heard of its usage for such things.
There's a lot of faces in the crowd who don't seem particularly happy to see JFK. If the umbrella thing was so well known why was there only the one.
And why is it that the only man with an umbrella is fabricating his HSCA testimony? If that doesn't make the Umbrella Man suspicious I don't know what does.
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. My posts were in response to the original poster, Michael Griffith, and his claim that it was "absurd" that anyone would use the umbrella as a symbol for anything in protest (as Witt claimed). He said he never heard of its usage for such things.
But the links I provided show the origins of this symbol and how it came to be seen as a sign of appeasement in the UK in particular or weakness politically. In another link there was a story about some German students sending JFK umbrellas as criticism for his lack of response when the Soviets constructed the Berlin Wall.
There was nothing in the links about how popular the idea was and/or whether the Birchers/Klansman in Dallas (or elsewhere) knew that it could be used to heckle JFK because of his father's support for the appeasement policies of Chamberlain. Some people knew about it; but most probably didn't.
Apparently Witt knew something about its symbolism. As he testified:
Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?
Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.
Mr. GENZMAN, How had you gotten this idea?
Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.
We have Witt himself says he vaguely knew about the symbolism and how it was a "sore spot" with the Kennedys. So he decided to just heckle him with it. We have one person doing an odd thing. And LBJ knew about the symbolism too when in the campaign he directed a criticism at Kennedy Sr.
Y'know, not everything has to be jammed into the conspiracy against JFK? Sometimes a guy scratching his nose in a photo in Dealey Plaza is not a signal, it's just a guy with an itchy nose?
The concept could have been...were more shots absolutely necessary?
Why take chances if no more were needed?
Mr Gordon Arnold the US soldier back then who reported that....
.... there were guys behind the fence and one wore a police uniform....
You posted the video!
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3429.msg126511.html#msg126511
This is precisely how they identified the Boston bombers. Walking away calmly in the midst of chaos.
If I remember correctly the Boston bombers were identified by video of them carrying backpack(s) into the area.Yes, and one of the victims - who lost both legs - identified one of them in a photo.
Yes, and one of the victims - who lost both legs - identified one of them in a photo.
BTW, didn't Oswald quietly leave the scene too? I've read rumors about that. Something about leaving work without permission. Then found in a theater about an hour later with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
Or was that Warrren Commission CIA/deep state lies?
Yes, and one of the victims - who lost both legs - identified one of them in a photo.
BTW, didn't Oswald quietly leave the scene too? I've read rumors about that. Something about leaving work without permission. Then found in a theater about an hour later with a loaded revolver and extra bullets.
Or was that Warrren Commission CIA/deep state lies?
The protest was just getting started in late-1963.Right...and I guess the guy with the walkie-talkie was just radioing his wife to find out what was on for supper :-\
I would assume lone TUMs would not raise their umbrellas in the crowds along Main. They might encounter some opposition' or be taken for weirdos. As it was, Witt was standing back from the sparse crowd, out of the sightline of those nearest him.Witt testified that someone at work (he was a supervisor at a local insurance company) told him that people in Tucson or Phoenix had displayed umbrellas at members of the Kennedy family at an airport and they, the Kennedys, got upset. So apparently among some Kennedy opponents/haters/critics it was a "thing" to do. Or consider. The idea that the display of umbrellas as protest was unheard of is just flat out wrong. It was done.
There was a mention on a Dallas blog (I have no link) that men carrying umbrellas were spotted at the Trade Mart. This would be a good area for multiple UMs to open their umbrellas in protest when the motorcade arrived. Maybe there was something about Love Field that didn't suit them.
Several white-power members known locally were arrested at the Trade Mart (it took the assassination for that to happen). The Umbrella protest was going to be a thing (like MAGA hats in 2016) for Republican Goldwaterites in 1964. The protest was just getting started in late-1963.
Witt said he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happened to JFK and the PT109.
The idea that the "City of Hate" didn't have it's fair share of rabid Republicans is a non-starter.
If my premise..... is false then how come I can prove what I had claimed? I am well aware that JFK won in Texas so why all your gaslighting?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5d/Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_1960.svg/1024px-Texas_Presidential_Election_Results_1960.svg.png)
Wiki shows 1960 election by Texas county...see the big red one in the northeast? = Dallas County....Nixon was over 62% just like I reported.
Time to learn how to absorb the facts.
Source------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas
No one said that. The fact remains that in the 1960s Texas and most of the south were states in which Dems won elections. They were in the majority in Texas. JFK won Texas in 1960. He won most of the southern states. To suggest that Dallas was a city of republicans is not correct. And, of course, JFK was not assassinated by any person with such a political affiliation. He was assassinated by a left wing loon.FWIW, I'll wager that most of those Bircher types in Dallas were registered Democrats. There really wasn't much of a Republican Party in the South at that time. Voting Republican was throwing away your vote. You may have voted for Nixon but you were still a registered Democrat. That's just a guess admittedly.
FWIW, I'll wager that most of those Bircher types in Dallas were registered Democrats. There really wasn't much of a Republican Party in the South at that time. Voting Republican was throwing away your vote. You may have voted for Nixon but you were still a registered Democrat. That's just a guess admittedly.
Any far right candidate would run as a Democrat since winning the GOP nomination was a dead end. As Edwin Walker did the year before in the gubernatorial race.
On the other hand (there's always at least one of these): Eisenhower won Dallas County in 1956 with 65% of the vote and in 1952 with 62% of the vote. So the Nixon vote/win was not an anomaly.
Yes, no state is all republican or democrat. To suggest JFK's death has something to do with the fact that some republicans lived in the Dallas area is absurd. JFK won Texas. Oswald was not a republican. He lived in the Dallas area. He was a radical leftist Commie. It's unreal to suggest that republicans somehow were responsible for JFK's death. Don't tell CNN, though, or they may run with it. I don't blame Dems for JFK's assassination simply because the assassin was a left wing nut and lived in a state where Dems were in the majority.It's a reminder that, although it's worse now, we've always had people willing to use tragedies for political benefit, to gain an advantage over their opponents using these deaths of people. Maybe they're sincere but it's still cheap wrong. And yes, sometimes - sometimes - it's fair to make a connection. Sometimes.
The responsibility belongs solely to Oswald himself.
Fact: JFK won the 1960 election in Texas. Fact: He was assassinated by a left-wing loon not a republican. Fact: Your premise is demonstrably false.
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. My posts were in response to the original poster, Michael Griffith, and his claim that it was "absurd" that anyone would use the umbrella as a symbol for anything in protest (as Witt claimed). He said he never heard of its usage for such things.
But the links I provided show the origins of this symbol and how it came to be seen as a sign of appeasement in the UK in particular or weakness politically. In another link there was a story about some German students sending JFK umbrellas as criticism for his lack of response when the Soviets constructed the Berlin Wall.
There was nothing in the links about how popular the idea was and/or whether the Birchers/Klansman in Dallas (or elsewhere) knew that it could be used to heckle JFK because of his father's support for the appeasement policies of Chamberlain. Some people knew about it; but most probably didn't.
Apparently Witt knew something about its symbolism. As he testified:
Mr. GENZMAN. Why were you carrying an umbrella that day?
Mr. WITT. Actually, I was going to use this umbrella to heckle the President's motorcade.
Mr. GENZMAN, How had you gotten this idea?
Mr. WITT. In a coffee break conversation someone had mentioned that the umbrella was a sore spot with the Kennedy family. Being a conservative-type fellow, I sort of placed him in the liberal camp and I was just going to kind of do a little heckling.
We have Witt himself says he vaguely knew about the symbolism and how it was a "sore spot" with the Kennedys. So he decided to just heckle him with it. We have one person doing an odd thing. And LBJ knew about the symbolism too when in the campaign he directed a criticism at Kennedy Sr.
Y'know, not everything has to be jammed into the conspiracy against JFK? Sometimes a guy scratching his nose in a photo in Dealey Plaza is not a signal, it's just a guy with an itchy nose?
Therefore the only probable CT reason (imo) for Umbrella man to raise the umbrella must have been to distract the SS agents in the follow up car to look forward at both umbrella man and his comrade DC man who was raising hand and moving towards the JFK limo, to aid a gunman from behind the limo to not br inadvertently detected by DS agents who SHOULD have been covering a 360 degree area with each agent observing approximately a 72 degree arc of area.
Shooting at Walker and also at JFK who forced Walker to resign and sent Walker to a mental institution . does seem to be contradictory.
The LN usually responds that this isn’t necessarily a contradiction if Oswald was Some kind of lone nut desiring to acquire fame by extraordinary shocking deed such as killing the POTUS and therefore the political orientation of the POTUS was irrelevant.
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.
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.
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 [to] contradict your other posts.+1 No big wonder there.
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.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?
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/1zDJb8bz/Willis5a.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
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:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp5n7Jsq/Betzner3-Crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
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.
By the way, how many Bircher supporters were there in Dallas at that time? 50? 100? 1000? Was Witt a Bircher?Probably not. He was also doubtfully Umbrella Man. Reasons have been mentioned.
No one ever said he was killed by a Republican.
But he was hated by many Dallas right wing radicals including Edwin Walker...so why would a lefty wing want to shoot JFK?
Fact...
(https://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkadhate.jpg)
Fact...
(https://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkadtreason.jpg)
You answered your own question. Oswald was a nut. Nuts do crazy things. Only Oswald knows his exact subjective motivation. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with the fact that some republicans in Dallas didn't like JFK.It's ironic that the Birchers saw the hand of Communists behind everything and the JFK conspiracy believers see the hand of "the CIA" or the "deep state" behind the entire assassination. In this case, Witt was part of this conspiracy. One side saw JFK as a traitor; the other sees everyone else including Ruth Paine as traitors. "Everyone else" being a figure of speech.
It's ironic that the Birchers saw the hand of Communists behind everything and the JFK conspiracy believers see the hand of "the CIA" or the "deep state" behind the entire assassination. In this case, Witt was part of this conspiracy. One side saw JFK as a traitor; the other sees everyone else including Ruth Paine as traitors. "Everyone else" being a figure of speech.
Oswald meanwhile was just some poor guy used in the plot.
As a side note: Bugliosi states (in "RH") that John Welch, the founder and president of the John Birch Society, denounced the assassination of JFK and expressed grief over the murder.
Hi Gerry,
I don't think there is one film showing the umbrella pump. But in Willis5 the umbrella is close to Umbrella Man's head and in Zapruder the umbrella is raised about 12-18". The animation is a crude demonstration.
(https://i.imgur.com/ppO7HAz.gif)
(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/Umbrella1.gif)
You answered your own question. Oswald was a nut. Nuts do crazy things. Only Oswald knows his exact subjective motivation. Whatever it was, it had nothing to do with the fact that some republicans in Dallas didn't like JFK.
Interesting animation. But is there an actual pumping action there? From the Zapruder film we see umbrella man lift up the umbrella as JFK approaches as if to make sure JFK saw it. So we have a movement of the umbrella up. But i'm not sure there is enough evidence to say he was moving it up and down in a pumping action. I just see him lift the umbrella up, which would be a natural thing to do if you wanted JFK to see the umbrella as part of a protest.Gerry, my bad. I was wanting to show the difference in up/down umbrella positions from both Willis and Zapruder points of view. However, I left the animation in repeat mode (default for animations) which, unfortunately, showed a pumping motion that was not my intent. I do not see any evidence for what I would call a pumping motion in the Zapruder film. As such, my animation is more confusing than helpful. I will edit my post with these static frames without the animation.
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.
Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.There were gale force winds that day?
Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.
Or--since he was named by conspiracy loons as a Presidential assassin--Witt probably wanted to downplay his "number of shots I heard", "the spacing of shots seemed to me to be" and "I saw Kennedy react on such-and-such a shot" so as to dissuade further stalking by the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon. He might have heard about how other witnesses were being abused by Loons on such matters, and since he wasn't sure on those things, he choose to keep them to himself. One of those Republicans who don't like being told by the Government or strange individuals what to do.
Billy Lovelady had to move out of Parkland and many Parkland doctors complained about Loons trying to make them change their testimony to fit the JFK Assassination Conspiracy Loon Theory (ie: anybody-but-Oswald).
Witt produced the ten-rib umbrella and showed it did not contain a gun or "launcher". He explained why he was there as a protester and that he had some trouble when his umbrella was buffeted by the wind, as the Zapruder film shows it was. It's sad how the Loons have polluted the witness pool to the point of casting spurious suspicion on the honesty ("lying") and mental ability ("truly catastrophic memory") of witnesses like Witt who don't conform.
Also...explain the radio man.
How do you explain that?
Also...explain the radio man.
Transistor radio? Probably was listening to the radio coverage of the motorcade. His enthusiastic wave as seen on the Zapruder film shows he was probably a JFK fan for his position on civil rights.Well I concede that this is all entirely/conceivably possible. But why listen to news broadcasting when someone is actually there... live and beholding the event?
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).
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.
You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting the mercenary character assassination of a fine Republican Goldwaterite.
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.
The wind raises up the umbrellaThe wind? The wind raised up the umbrella and rotated it? So you didn't need a guy there ...just an umbrella :D :D
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.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.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)(http://) (https://imgbox.com/9dFW1FbR)Sure, Skeptic-Tank.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Same flag pinned
against fender earlier.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
When flag became
pinned against fender.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Presidential flag being
whipped by the wind.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
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.
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.
Wind blowing open Hill's and Moorman's heavy fall coats.Now you weighed their coats? :D
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.What's the evidence again for these multiple sniper teams?
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.
There is el zippo evidence of multiple shooters or any shooter other than Oswald. But even if there was a Wild West shootout going on in Dealey Plaza, there was no need for some guy to wave an umbrella around. It is just an oddity of life that at the particular historic moment one guy happened to be there with his umbrella to protest. It does not have greater significance for that reason alone as CTers suggest. If JFK wasn't assassinated at the moment, no one would have ever known about it. Random events happen all the time in life, and no one takes much notice. If someone examined every single detail that occurs on any given day with pedantic enthusiasm, you would find many unlikely things occur in the ordinary course of events. That doesn't mean there is some guiding hand behind it. Just the opposite.
Yeah all those people running to or heading for the grassy knoll were just in big rush to get out of the parking lot and beat the traffic.
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.
(https://i.ibb.co/fF33Tpp/Umbrella-in-Zfilm.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/myFbKSC/American-Horror-Story-Coven-Umbrellas.gif)
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?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"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."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"The next thing I saw after I saw the car [the Presidential limousine] coming
down the street, down the hill to my left ..."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"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."
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"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.
Yes, it was windy that day.
(https://img75.pixhost.to/images/95/298095423_news-clip-early-morning-collage-all-clips-the-portal-to-texas-history.gif)
Marion Baker noted that the wind almost blew him over on his motorcycle:
Mr. BELIN - You said you were going down Main Street at around Record at from 5 to 10 miles an hour?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - All right.
Will you take up your trip from there, please?
Mr. BAKER - As we approached the corner there of Main and Houston we were making a right turn, and as I came out behind that building there, which is the county courthouse, the sheriff building, well, there was a strong wind hit me and I almost lost my balance.
Wind Factor Dealey PlazaThe 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.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
Where’s the evidence that Witt was even the umbrella man?
... a lady holding an umbrella...Nah...that was Mary Poppins :-\
Further evidence that umbrellas were a known symbol for showing dissatisfaction regarding the Kennedys’ policies.
You [Jerry Organ] have clearly not read Witt's HSCA testimony yet you feel qualified to comment on it.Is that what he is? Actually, Organ is a skeptic [skeptical of skepticism]
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...You should be ashamed as a researcher.
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).The Zapruder film does not show the umbrella buffeted by the wind and link the volume, page, and paragraph where Witt says it was...start here--
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.The Loons huh? Well that leaves me out because I have been posting this very idea since I joined up here.
"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 (https://prospect.org/education/radicalism-dallas-1963/) )
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.
Ambush--- an act or instance of lying concealed so as to attack by surprise; an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position.
"Ambush?" Doesn't that make you a mind-made-up Conspiracy Theorist? I don't know what, if any, LN evidence you've given fair consideration.
Ambush, as in 'surprise attack' is the word I introduced ... actions regarding Kennedy and Tippit...Stay tuned for furtherMr Chapman usurps all and claims the original formulation of the word ambush re Nov 22 ::)
word-nourishment.
Mr Chapman usurps all and claims the original formulation of the word ambush re Nov 22 ::)
Actually...Officer Tippit was not ambushed per se. No one was hiding behind a tree or bush.
The policeman [according to Ms Markham] was in full view of his assailant.
Further...according to her testimony....Officer Tippit probably knew his attacker.
We can most likely get more word nourishment from a pencil eraser.
The usual “Richard Smith” BS:
There weren’t “numerous witnesses” who saw anybody pull a trigger.
Mr "Smith" never lets the facts stand in his way....
Witness hears a BANG from a gunshot - witness looks toward the sound of the gunshot and sees LHO standing there with a gun in his hand. No other person with a gun is visible in the vicinity of the shooting. What logical inference can be drawn for this situation here on planet Earth? And, of course, a witness did literally see him pull the trigger. It's a slam dunk of guilt. If there were any doubt, Oswald is arrested a short distance away after resisting arrest. He has a gun and the same two brand of ammo in his possession as were used to kill Tippit. What are the odds? LHO looks exactly like the killer. He is in both the building from which JFK is assassinated and street that Tippit is murdered. He has the same ammo as the Tippit killer. He is acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of a random citizen. But he there is doubt according to our contrarians because multiple witnesses didn't see him "pull the trigger." They just saw him at the murder scene with his gun drawn. LOL. That comes as great news for John Wilkes Booth.
It's easy to see and understand why you believe what you do..... You never let little things like facts hinder your beliefs .....
It is a FACT that the witnesses at the scene said that they saw the killer removing the spent shells from his revolver as he walked away from the scene. ALL of those witnesses swore that he removed ONE SHELL AT A TIME as he walked away. And in FACT the shells were found widely disbursed.
The FACT that the man extracted one shell at a time indicates that the man was NOT using a Smith & Wesson revolver. The shells are removed all at the same time from a S&W revolver.....
I wouldn't expect you to understand this simple fact , Mr "Smith" ..... Because you are blinded by your ego, and you can't see the light because of where you have your head.
Witness hears a BANG from a gunshot - witness looks toward the sound of the gunshot and sees LHO standing there with a gun in his hand. No other person with a gun is visible in the vicinity of the shooting. What logical inference can be drawn for this situation here on planet Earth? And, of course, a witness did literally see him pull the trigger. It's a slam dunk of guilt. If there were any doubt, Oswald is arrested a short distance away after resisting arrest. He has a gun and the same two brand of ammo in his possession as were used to kill Tippit. What are the odds? LHO looks exactly like the killer. He is in both the building from which JFK is assassinated and street that Tippit is murdered. He has the same ammo as the Tippit killer. He is acting so suspiciously that he draws the attention of a random citizen. But he there is doubt according to our contrarians because multiple witnesses didn't see him "pull the trigger." They just saw him at the murder scene with his gun drawn. LOL. That comes as great news for John Wilkes Booth.
"And, of course, a witness did literally see him pull the trigger. It's a slam dunk of guilt."
This is it!
This is the moment six decades of doubt and uncertainty come to an end.
Who was the witness Mr Smith?
Who literally saw Oswald pull the trigger?
I can't wait for this whole issue to be put to bed.
You know the answer. Do you just want to go round and round about it? Markham saw the shooting. To fire a gun, you have to "pull the trigger." In addition, as I pointed out before we go down this rabbit hole, numerous witnesses identified Oswald at the scene at the moment of the shooting with a gun in his hand. No other person with a gun in their hand was seen. On planet Earth, and not down the pedantic contrarian rabbit hole, this can be described as seeing the shooter. Unless you think the shooter was the Invisible Man. Foks in Ford's Theatre heard a gunshot, looked in the direction it came from to see John Wilkes Booth holding a gun at Lincolns' head. What logical inference can be drawn from this situation? Why would anyone take issue with the conclusion that multiple witnesses saw the shooter (i.e. the only person holding a gun at the moment of the shooting)? This is just typical contrarian nonsense to deflect from the evidence. Multiple witnesses place LHO at the scene of the Tippit shooting with a gun in his hand. Oswald was arrested a short distance away, after resisting arrest, with a gun and the same two brands of ammo used in the murder. It's a literal slam dunk of guilt.
More “Richard Smith” BS. First of all, Acquilla Clemons described a different person with a gun in his hand. Second of all, the witnesses that picked Oswald did so from unfair, biased lineups, or by being shown a single mugshot of Oswald months later. Third of all, only one brand of ammo was (allegedly) found on Oswald’s person (hours after he was already arrested and searched), and Remington and Winchester bullets were by far the most common .38 ammo. This is like making a big deal about Oswald drinking a Coca-Cola instead of an RC Cola.
Mr Chapman usurps all and claims the original formulation of the word ambush re Nov 22 ::)
Actually...Officer Tippit was not ambushed per se. No one was hiding behind a tree or bush.
The policeman [according to Ms Markham] was in full view of his assailant.
Further...according to her testimony....Officer Tippit probably knew his attacker.
We can most likely get more word nourishment from a pencil eraser.
Like clown-boy knows what soft drink was “Oswald’s choice”.
With some police shootings of minorities, it's the opposite. An invisible "gun" is "seen" in the hand of the compliant "suspect" by a racist officer, then after "appropriate measures" (learned in so-called "training"), the now-dead suspect's "gun" is no longer seen.
Where did you come up with RC Cola
I saw no references to that re Oswald.
But plenty to Oswald and Dr P.
An ambush is where someone never even sees their attacker.
Finally, Tippit was indeed ambushed: He moved into a position that left him with, realistically, no real cover at all. IOW he wasn't expecting an attack. Pretty sure he would be surprised at what ensued.
The point flew way over your head. As usual.
An ambush is where someone never even sees their attacker.
Otherwise by your definition...every shooting is an ambush.
Put that one in your bong :-\
No... but someone can just make make it up as they go along.
If the truth is on your side, you don’t need to lie about the evidence.
At the end of the day, 'ambush' equates with being caught off-guardWere you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Were you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Argument with a fence post = more fun :D
Were you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Argument with a fence post = more fun :D
No... but someone can just make make it up as they go along.
BTW...wasn't Oswald quoted as saying "he went upstairs to get a Coke"?
Ding-dong
Mr Chapman, Although I believe that you're a simple minded jerk.... If you were being assaulted as Lee Oswald has been,..... You'd be calling me a Bill Chapman arse kisser.....
Cite proof of that statement.
Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
Cite proof of that statement.
Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
Cite proof of that statement.
i looked it upYeah...You looked up your backside is what you did.
Yeah...You looked up your backside is what you did.
Otherwise you would have a link for us to see.
Your failure is our success.
What you did was nothingIf you can't take the blame--then don't make the claim.
So Skeptic-Tank has never read such fundamental books as Jim Bishop's "The Day Kennedy Was Shot". He just takes tantalizing tid-bits off conspiracy websites and plunks them down here troll-style.
If you can't take the blame--then don't make the claim.
I shouldn't have to try and look up your silly non-existent allegations.
As opposed to taking tidbits from WC-evangelist books and plunking them down here.
Traumatic-brain-injury-boy still has yet to explain what the problem is with that.
That's not in testimony is it?
Marina said Oswald after-work would go get a newspaper and Dr Pepper.
Bugliosi wanted more, so he telephoned Wesley Frazier who told him Oswald always got a Dr Pepper.A hot line to Frazier?
The Dr Pepper pop machine was on the first floor and it had been stocked the day before. The pop machine on the second floor had only Coca-Cola.Bugliosi wanted more---More what? :D
You never stated a case.
You seem quite infatuated there.
Bugliosi did what's called research.
David Belin: "Was he carrying anything in his hands?"The contradiction you always conveniently ignore----
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marrion Baker: "He had nothing at that time."
Oswald didn't bring a lunch that day
Who introduced to this post Oswald getting a Coke?Just responding to post # 159...that's all...the claim that Oswald only drank Dr Pepper...solely.. exclusively...and the ref to a Coca Cola must be absolutely erroneous.
Bugliosi did what's called research.
Nothing there about Oswald's preference of soft drink. Of course, claiming he already had purchased the drink before the encounter instead of after meant he was--pardon the pun--grasping at straws for any alibi, no matter how shaky.
Furthermore "OSWALD stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees lunchroom." We know that's a lie because Oswald didn't bring a lunch that day
and he was seen by Mrs. Reid moments after the lunchroom encounter passing through the second floor headed for the front door
So? Baker corrects a page so it matches his testimony months before. Now if you can find where Baker mentions a Coke in Oswald's hand prior to his testimony, let us know.
Dr Pepper was Oswald's preferred soda, according to those who saw him with a soda prior to Nov. 22. No one claimed he didn't drink other brands. Buying a Coke was some ad hoc justification for himself being seen in the second floor lunchroom just after the assassination. It's so transparent.
So? Baker corrects a page so it matches his testimony months before. Now if you can find where Baker mentions a Coke in Oswald's hand prior to his testimony, let us know.
I will. Right after I dine on the self-righteous indignation of cowardly clown-boys.
'dine on the self-righteous indignation'
_ LOL. That terminology in itself is self-righteous.
Hahahahahahahaha!
Now, where does a foxhole atheist like you get to borrow Romans 2:1-5?
Although, plagiarism does suits you.
What are you babbling about now? I borrowed nothing of the kind.
Hahahaha
Since when would you ever come up with a term like 'dine on the self-righteous indignation' on your own?
The contradiction you always conveniently ignore----
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aBTInu_OfUU/WV3x3uWqBAI/AAAAAAABMRw/_g6vClvxpJQpknWKuttxfSDWn9kT8geMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Marrion-Baker-9-23-64-Affidavit.png)
So? Baker corrects a page so it matches his testimony months before.So? ?
Since when have you ever been right about anything? Besides, there's nothing even remotely similar to that in the bible verses you cited. Nice try though. It's hilarious watching you try to be relevant, when you're not obsessively making and posting "clever" graphics that nobody ever responds to and derailing threads with your constant trolling.
You never stated a case.
You are saying that Burnett wrote by hand.. that Baker affidavit? There are some similarities but look at the 'S' in the text like September and Special and the 'S' in the Burnett signature 'Special Agent' ..totally different.
What I think happened was that one of the FBI men filled out the statement and went to Baker, maybe when Baker was on duty and pressed for time, and got him to review it before signing. The agent was going by some speculative news report (not a "cover-up playbook") that Oswald had the Coke in hand. Roy Truly had a similar handwritten statement that he signed;
Why?..if the Baker testimony was all that pat? Why was it necessary to compose this hand written statement on the fly? For what purpose?
These statements might have been written in the field and were needed on a "rush" basis.
When Baker signed it, he didn't agree with "drinking a coke".Well someone didn't. Why was it written then?
Was the Coke issue even a thing in September 1964?Well Hell yes. Why would someone who just fired a rifle at the parade and then do all this other stuff attributed to his actions ..wiping off that rifle...hiding it between mountains of boxes of books.. choose to do something so casual as run down to the lunchroom and purchase a soda [which took that extra time needed for an alibi]
Someone on the WC staff was being conscientious and wanted things double-checked. Burnett might have read or heard an over-generalization about the Coke(https://media2.giphy.com/media/1WHAlOdc9ZNUZq85JI/giphy.gif)
Mark Lane, in reading media reports, at first thought any shots fired from in front came from the Triple Underpass. It was only later he switched to the Grassy Knoll.What does that have to do with anything? Some 50+ spectators reported shot or shots fired from that area.
Why?..if the Baker testimony was all that pat? Why was it necessary to compose this hand written statement on the fly? For what purpose? Well someone didn't. Why was it written then? Well Hell yes. Why would someone who just fired a rifle at the parade and then do all this other stuff attributed to his actions ..wiping off that rifle...hiding it between mountains of boxes of books.. choose to do something so casual as run down to the lunchroom and purchase a soda [which took that extra time needed for an alibi]
The Warrenites couldn't have that anomaly around.
How would I or anyone else know almost 60 years later? I suggested it was for the WC finding that Oswald was alone in the second-floor lunchroom during the encounter. Someone on the WC staff was being conscientious and wanted things double-checked.
Burnett might have read or heard an over-generalization about the Coke (the bottle was seen in the assassin's hand, but by Mrs. Reid, not Baker) in the media. He wouldn't have written it at all if he was following some "cover-up playbook" nor would he have submitted such an "incriminating" (LOL) document.
Mark Lane, in reading media reports, at first thought any shots fired from in front came from the Triple Underpass. It was only later he switched to the Grassy Knoll.
Oh my. Such a drama queen. :D
So you don't know if it the Coke issue was an matter of debate by Loons in September 1964.
> Self righteous is what the Bible reference is all about
> 'Nobody ever responds to'
18,000 views and counting
What I think happened was that one of the FBI men filled out the statement and went to Baker, maybe when Baker was on duty and pressed for time, and got him to review it before signing.
The case states itself:
You taking a knee at Oswald's grave.... that's it, thats the punch line
Oh my. Such a drama queen. :D
So you don't know if it the Coke issue was an matter of debate by Loons in September 1964.
if it the Coke?
debate by LoonsLN stands for lone nut?
drama queenNothing dramatic...just facts.
Was the Coke issue even a thing in September 1964?I concede that Burnett wrote the [Baker] note. I still don't understand the purpose of the note.
Gun in hand, he [Baker] rushed to the door and saw a man about 20 feet away walking toward the other end of the lunchroom. The man was empty handed. Within about 1 minute after his encounter with Baker and Truly, Oswald was seen passing through the second-floor offices. In his hand was a full "Coke" bottle which he had purchased from a vending machine in the lunchroom. He was walking toward the front of the building where a passenger elevator and a short flight of stairs provided access to the main entrance of the building on the first floor. Approximately 7 minutes later, at about 12:40 p.m, Oswald boarded a bus at a point on Elm Street seven short blocks east of the Depository Building.Who actually witnessed the encounter between Baker and Truly that establishes this "within 1 minute"?
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.
In another forum, a fellow researcher pointed out that in his testimony, Witt said that the limousine came to a screeching halt, and that he heard tires screech from the stop. He mentions these things in passing, and I must admit that I had overlooked this part of his testimony!
Given Witt's mentioning of the limo stop and the screeching of tires, I am inclined to believe that his explanation for his actions with the umbrella, as odd and unbelievable as it seems, may in fact be true.
Even though the CIA DID have a special type umbrella that could fire darts, it would have been an incredible shot to make with the wind gusts and the moving target , so That theory is a low probability at best.
To pick up your question that has to do with the explosive bullet of the JFK era, I shall open Leonard Moseley's fine book, DULLES. On page 459 it provides some good comments on this bullet, etc. by commenting ALLEN DULLES: Now he was interested in the more sinister Agency experiments in mind bending drugs, portable phials of lethal viruses and esoteric poisons that killed without trace. Allen's sense of humor was touched when he learned that the unit working on these noxious enterprises was called the Health Alteration Committee (directed by Dr. Sidney Gottlieb and Boris Pash), and he added to his collection of CIA curios a noiseless gun which the committee had produced for firing darts smeared with LSD, germs, or venom at enemy agents or foreign personalities whose existence the CIA was finding embarrassing."
You will note, in this opener, we have the names "Gottleib and Pash." It just happens that Gottlieb died on March 7, 1999 in Washington, DC. I worked rather closely with him and his staff, MKULTRA during certain years of my assignment in the Pentagon under Gen. Erskine and with Lansdale. This is where our story begins.
One day Lansdale came across the hall to my office with a man whom he addressed as the "Inventor" of a new small, and special weapon which he would like to have us study. The man remained in my office for an hour or more as he took that small weapon that was little more than a high-powered "dart" that was fired from a pipe-let about the size of a "milk-shake straw". The tip of this device could be loaded with a high explosive, and the whole thing could be fired through this "straw" from any small pipe, or barrel. In his eagerness, he inserted one into a straw section about 10 or 12" inches long. Then he lightly touched a small button and in a silent instant it flashed across my office, into the wall on the other side.
As he calmed me down he told me that this device could be fired from many devices...one of the best might be an ordinary umbrella modified to fired it through a "straw-like' tube at high and silent speed. It would be silent and would explode upon hitting its target...say another human being.
A week later Ed Lansdale and I took a helicopter ride from the Pentagon to a special laboratory that had been working with the inventor and some of their staff of specialists. In a short time they had adequately demonstrated this new, silent device. It killed a goat at a distance of about 30-40 feet.
Of the many devices these men had worked on was an umbrella. The handle contained the hand-activated, silent trigger. This fired the small rocket at the goat. The deadly part of this tiny weapon was a sight set at about the sight in the handle to be even with a tip of the umbrella rib. The sight and umbrella were designed to be in a perfectly straight and level line. The dart would hit the "target-animal" silently and at high speed. Then it would be exploded with a terrific burst inside the body of the target. Anyone could see that this weapon was lethal.
Lansdale and I returned to the Pentagon and as far as I recall this device was entered into the MKULTRA arsenal of special "toys."
I believe that this is the weapon you have described in your e-mail message. I have always believed that it would be uncovered in due time. Perhaps the timely death of Col Gottlieb. opened the door. Much can be said about this weapon and its possible utilization as the JFK assassination tool.
You may be interested to know that there is a new assassination book, "ASSASSINATION SCIENCE" on the market by a skilled team of doctors who are familiar with the JFK Assassinations and the medical work that has been studied since then. I suggest you get the book, and speak to these specialists.
Thank you for your note,
L. Fletcher Prouty
Colonel USAF (Ret'd)
formerly...Chief of Special Operations
"That [umbrella] system was quite remarkable. You could see the subject through the targeting mechanism just like he was right there in front of you--close up--and you'd track him by rotating the canopy. A shot like the one in Dealey Plaza wouldn't have been difficult. You see, the distance from Kennedy to that man with the umbrella looks a lot farther in the pictures and films, but it was quite close. An easy shot with a device like that. I've seen it done in testing from a much greater distance than that. Once they blew the hind leg clean off of a goat with one of those darts--loaded with a very high explosive--from about a hundred yards away."