Gunman in the pergola window...

[Royell Storing]

You seem to be incapable of distinguishing the difference between a film record of an event and a fictional portrayal of it.

     You better review the history of the Bronson Film. That Bronson "film record" was Not Publicly Known until AFTER Witt's HSCA Testimony.  And specifically, what qualification(s) need to be met in order to qualify for your "film record" label? You throw that "film record" classification around very easily. The Bronson Film was MIA for close to 15 yrs.

[John Corbett]

     You better review the history of the Bronson Film. That Bronson "film record" was Not Publicly Known until AFTER Witt's HSCA Testimony. 

So?

[Royell Storing]

So?

   Again. I ask specifically what is required to qualify for your "Film Record" label. The Bronson Film showing the Umbrella Man was MIA for 15 yrs. What we see Umbrella Man NOT doing on the Bronson Film clashes with the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man. Both Witt and the Bronson Film can Not be true. They are in stark contrast with each other.

[John Corbett]

   Again. I ask specifically what is required to qualify for your "Film Record" label. The Bronson Film showing the Umbrella Man was MIA for 15 yrs. What we see Umbrella Man NOT doing on the Bronson Film clashes with the HSCA Testimony of Witt/Umbrella Man. Both Witt and the Bronson Film can Not be true. They are in stark contrast with each other.

If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.

[Royell Storing]

If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.

   There's a big difference between a witness giving testimony that is "wrong" vs a "lie". For you to describe Witt's testimony as "wrong" vs what we see on the Bronson Film, signals you are not completely familiar with Witt's HSCA Testimony. There's nothing wrong with admitting this, and your unfamiliarity regarding the history of the Bronson Film. For you to reply with a "So?", is akin to a blind man reaching out in the dark. There's also nothing wrong with asking specific questions. 

[Mitch Todd]

If the film clashes with what Witt said, then there are two possible ways of resolving the conflict. Either Witt was wrong or the film was altered. Of the two, I find Witt being wrong being a far more likely resolution of the conflict unless someone has evidence the film was altered. For three and a half decades I have seen one conspiracy hobbyist after another claim one film or another has been altered without presenting any evidence to support the claim. I accept all films as genuine until and unless someone provides evidence of alteration.

What material conflict is there between Witt's testimony and the Bronson film? All I see so far are some vague claims that one exists, but nothing specific that can be examined.

[Royell Storing]

What material conflict is there between Witt's testimony and the Bronson film? All I see so far are some vague claims that one exists, but nothing specific that can be examined.

   Thanks for being man enough to simply ask this question. Witt testified that he was sitting on the knoll when the JFK Limo surprised him as it came down Elm St. He jumped up and began moving straight toward Elm St as he simultaneously struggled to open his umbrella. He claimed by the time he looked up from his struggling with the umbrella, that the JFK Limo had already traveled passed by him. None of this is on the Bronson Film. The Bronson film shows Witt standing stock still with the JFK Limo not yet having reached him. Witt did positively ID himself on the photo showing Witt seated on the retaining wall with The Cuban. The Bronson film had not become  public at the time of the Witt HSCA testimony. The Zapruder Film also shows the Umbrella being fully open and pumped as the JFK Limo passed by the Umbrella Man. 

[John Corbett]

   There's a big difference between a witness giving testimony that is "wrong" vs a "lie". For you to describe Witt's testimony as "wrong" vs what we see on the Bronson Film, signals you are not completely familiar with Witt's HSCA Testimony. There's nothing wrong with admitting this, and your unfamiliarity regarding the history of the Bronson Film. For you to reply with a "So?", is akin to a blind man reaching out in the dark. There's also nothing wrong with asking specific questions.

If a person gives testimony that is demonstrably incorrect, they could simply be wrong or they could be lying. Perjury is when you give testimony that you know to me wrong and it is a serious crime. Most people when testifying under oath are going to try to give accurate accounts to the best of their ability. Human beings are fallible and don't always remember things exactly the way they happened. I have no reason to believe Witt deliberately falsified his testimony. I believe he testified to the event as best he remembered it. If it doesn't square with the film record, it doesn't prove he committed perjury. It means he had less than perfect memory which is true for all of us.