Umbrella Man: Suspicious

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

the Birchers saw the hand of Communists behind everything

Hmmmm..... Was J. Edgar Hoover a Bircher?

[Gerry Down]

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.

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 Down]

[Walt Cakebread]

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.

 Oswald was a nut.  Nuts do crazy things.

Really ?? you think the USMC don't screen their recruits?   Don't you think that the DI's deliberately provoke a man who may have mental problems?   

Anybody who would say that Lee Oswald was a nut is probably about a nickel short of having a half dollar.   

[James Hackerott]

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.

[Dan O'meara]

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.

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'm not seeing a conspiracy behind his act. Earlier in the thread I posted this, mocking the idea the umbrella was a signal for an assassin:

"What is also laughable is the notion this is being used as a signal for a shooter (or shooters) to fire/continue firing. I can just imagine the meeting when that was arranged - "An umbrella? But what if it's sunny?"

When you posted the article about Chamberlain's connection with the umbrella and the term Umbrella Man, I was convinced you had made a sound argument for the possibility that Witt's claim might have some veracity. Hardly the approach of a run-of-the-mill CTer.
But I have had exactly the same problem you complain about - whenever I've tried to reason with LNers over various aspects of the case that are problematic for their narrative the experience has not been a good one. The usual tactic being the one you have just used yourself - dump me in with the more extreme CT views and move on.

But the issue is Witt's testimony.
It's not a question of my interpretation of what he is saying. His testimony is flatly contradicted by the photographic/film record - that is a fact.
Witt has his umbrella fully raised before JFK is hit by any shot (it is my personal belief, based on extensive research, that his umbrella is raised before the first shot is even fired).
He even claims to have seen the limo slow down and Hill running towards it. This is the moment JFK's head explodes but he somehow misses this little detail.
Witt is either lying, has a truly catastrophic memory or he wasn't there.

[Jerry Freeman]

Why does everybody still ignore the dark skinned walkie talkie man?
He is practically holding hands with TUM.



Perhaps they just don't wish to acknowledge the photo evidence?

Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.

There were gale force winds that day?