The brief view in the Zapruder film shows, to me, the umbrella being lifted by the wind and twisting involuntarily about the staff.
The umbrella is still raised in the Bronson film, suggesting Witt also meant the symbolism for the pols in the cars behind. In previous years, an umbrella was mailed to the Kennedy White House and another left on a desk in Congress as a protest. LBJ said he was not a Chamberlain umbrella man, referring to Joseph Kennedy.
A book on the bestseller list in November 1963 was "JFK Man or Myth" which explained the umbrella symbolism, and I assume there was some mention of it in Trump-type alt-right newsletters and GOP-hate meetings. The umbrella protest fizzled out in the wake of JFK's canonization.
There will always be a small minority of folks who believe that any apparent oddity in this case must be the product of something nefarious or evidence of such when not every detail can be known. I doubt even most fringe CTers, however, believe that UM had anything to do with the assassination. No person who applies an ounce of common sense to this situation would conclude that there was any reason for an assassin to need a "signal" to commit the act. The motorcade and JFK were clearly visible to anyone in DP with eyes and ears. What value would any signal add for the assassin? There would be obvious risks. Like someone finding it suspicious and continuing to discuss for 60 years. And imagine finding a volunteer to hold the open umbrella while standing out like a sore thumb as rifle shots are being fired in his vicinity.
You miss the Major Point. The ID of the "Umbrella Man" remains Unknown. Based on Witt's HSCA Testimony vs the Bronson and Willis images, Witt is NOT the person we see on those images.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/82/43/UIBscBYk_o.gif) | (https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/4c/PDHP2cfG_o.jpg) |
That's the major point? LOL. How about this: WHO CARES since it has absolutely nothing to do with the assassination? What difference does it make if it is him or someone else? There were many people standing on the street.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/82/43/UIBscBYk_o.gif) (https://images2.imgbox.com/0b/4c/PDHP2cfG_o.jpg)
The umbrella almost blew out of Witt's hands, he's standing on a "retaining wall" (inner curb of sidewalk that hold back the sloping soil), Witt's umbrella had ten-ribs (like the one in the film; the loons said it was eight ribs for decades) and the facial measurements are exact. A co-worker identified him from a media appeal.
But never mind all that. Witt is some "official" explanation that "makes no sense". Marjorie Taylor Greene/Mark Robinson territory.
We have an Unknown Eyewitness standing only feet away from the JFK Limo and your response is "WHO CARES"? I contend the FBI/SS knew exactly who the Umbrella Man was. They had NO Problem running down Bob Croft in under 24 hrs. Croft was a missionary that had a layover in Dallas during his railroad trip from Little Rock to Denver on 11/22/63. He claims he spoke to no one, yet the following morning the FBI was banging on his door in Denver and demanding his film. The difference between Bob Croft and Umbrella Man is that Bob Croft had taken photos of the JFK Limo as it cruised by him on Elm St. Umbrella Man did not take photos/film. "Who Cares"? This echoes the mind set of the FBI/SS.
There were many people standing on the street that day. Many were questioned or interviewed. There is no logical reason to believe this person saw or heard anything that others standing around him didn't. In all likelihood, if he had something to contribute to the investigation, he would have come forward to the authorities as Brennan did at the scene. None of that, however, has anything to do with why UM is a person of interest after six decades. Some CTers want to link him to the crime itself as a participant in the conspiracy. The takeaway is that makes no sense and he had nothing to do with the assassination whoever he might be. As a result, his identity is a person of mere historical curiosity. Would it be better if he and everyone in DP had been interviewed? Sure. The DPD would still be at the crime scene. But the default to that, however, is not that there was a conspiracy.