JFK Assassination Forum

General Discussion & Debate => General Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on July 29, 2022, 02:05:34 AM

Title: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 29, 2022, 02:05:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Gerry Down on July 29, 2022, 02:12:58 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 29, 2022, 02:36:32 AM
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 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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: James Hackerott on July 29, 2022, 03:00:56 AM
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,
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.
EDIT 20220731-Animation Deleted
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.

(https://i.imgur.com/bBEKXPn.jpg)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 03:07:49 AM
Roy Hargraves was the Umbrella Guy and Felipe Vidal Santiago was Dark Complected Man.

https://tangodown63.com/hargraves-roy-emory/

https://tangodown63.com/vidal-santiago-felipe/



Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 29, 2022, 04:08:01 AM

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

DCM does not thrust his fist up into the air. In frame 228, he clearly has his hand extended, like he is waving.

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 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.

All that is gold does not glitter. But all those who wander with false claims are lost.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 04:34:38 AM
Go to https://tangodown63.com/

I've already posted above it was Feilpe Vidal Santiago. If you look at his pictures at the bottom of the page one shows him putting the radio in the back of his pants.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 29, 2022, 05:02:28 AM

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?
Fact ...Just after he has raised the umbrella.. a shot is fired and a bullet strikes JFK in the head.
His neighbor ..the dark fellow throws his hand up and then down at the same time in a typical ready... aim... firing squad gesture.
It does appear that dark guy may be fiddling with a walkie-talky in various stills.
Who cares if Chamberlain is associated with an umbrella?...There was no other such gesture photographed or documented in the Kennedy's entire political life.
It certainly took some imagination to come up with that one  :-\
Both men sit down for a brief chat and without seemingly any further interest stand calmly up and disappear.
Neither are ever heard from.
The nearest spectators to the president's final breath and then they gone like the mist.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 05:14:54 AM
Because some people believe that the "Umbrella Man" was actually a protest against Joseph Kennedy who backed appeasment with Chamberlain. It's about as bogus as Steven Witt.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 29, 2022, 08:37:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 12:59:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 29, 2022, 01:05:32 PM
It's likely he was signaling the spotters and not the shooters.

The spotters?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 01:38:25 PM
The spotters?

Yes spotters. Most likely they were the communications and kept people at bay for the shooters.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 29, 2022, 02:19:55 PM
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.

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? 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 29, 2022, 02:22:38 PM
Yes spotters. Most likely they were the communications and kept people at bay for the shooters.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 02:26:36 PM
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.
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.

The origins of the term apparently began with a book critical of Chamberlain and others that was published shortly after Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia and violated the Munich peace agreement. In 1940, a group of British writers published a book called "Guilty Men" which became a best seller and was extremely influential. The authors denounced 15 British figures - including most notably Neville Chamberlain - for their appeasement of Hitler. Chamberlain was called "Umbrella Man" in a chapter (and elsewhere) in the book. See below.

In the Robert Dallek book on JFK, he mentions that in his campaign LBJ "pilloried Joe Kennedy as a Nazi appeaser: "I wasn't any Chamberlain umbrella man policy man," he declared. "I never thought Hitler was right."

"Umbrella man policy" means appeasement.

(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9337928664/Keyhss004o3qqtp/umbrella%20man.JPG)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 29, 2022, 03:09:21 PM
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?

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 ...... The Cuban exiles apparently thought they could deliver that message with the umbrella...They . thought JFK had betrayed them....and they wanted revenge for what the their CIA handlers told them was betrayal at BOP.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 29, 2022, 04:29:11 PM
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....

Even if that was the guy's aim with the umbrella on Dealey Plaza, I can't see any credible relevance to the assassination.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 29, 2022, 04:33:48 PM
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.

What Chamberlain was famous for - and it's directly to do with appeasement - is stepping off a plane after his return from Munich and waving a white piece of paper (the peace agreement signed with Hitler) and claiming "we have peace for our time" [d'oh!]
This is from an article about Umbrella Man [https://www.businessinsider.com/jfk-umbrella-manmore-doubts-2011-12?r=US&IR=T]:

"According to John Simkin, a retired British history teacher and textbook author who runs the historical website Spartacus Educational, the umbrella was never the symbol of Chamberlain that the “umbrella man” claimed he was.

“In Britain, there was never any association with an umbrella at all,” Simkin told me. “Everyone had umbrellas and bowlers in those days.” According to Simkin, the only proper symbol for Chamberlain and appeasement was a piece of paper. That was the document he held aloft, with Hitler’s signature to the so-called Munich Agreement—in which Hitler agreed not to seek any further territorial gains in Europe—as Chamberlain famously declared that he had secured “peace in our time.” (In this old newsreel, you can see Chamberlain hold aloft that document.)

Simkin finds the New York Times video’s assertion that the purpose of opening the umbrella and pumping it in the air to signal Munich simply laughable."


And it is laughable - but it won't go away.
Another myth to dispel is the "pumping action" of the umbrella. It doesn't happen.
In Zapruder it is just about discernible that the umbrella is being raised [using Stemmons sign as a guide] and that it is turning slightly. That's it.
In all other photos the umbrella is already up. As the Presidential limo approaches the umbrella is raised in the air.
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?"

That said, 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."
At best, this is a catastrophically bad memory, at worst, a complete fabrication.
Willis 5, thought to represent Zapruder frame 202, shows the umbrella clearly raised. This is way before the throat shot or the head shot. In fact, I believe 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.

So, we have Witt's nonsense reason for taking his umbrella to Dealey Plaza that day and his catastrophically bad memory of the event (almost as if he wasn't there). But that's not the end of the weirdness.
As everyone around him flees the scene in horror, Witt has a sit down. He either joins or is joined by DCM, who also decides, very unusually given the situation, to have a sit down. I tried to track down the earliest record of this event and thought I'd found it in the Couch film. This screenshot is taken around 30-35 seconds after the headshot:

(https://i.postimg.cc/8PGM6RJV/Screenshot-252-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)

However, after carefully scanning the Wiegmen film, I believe I have an even earlier record of the event. It's poor quality, and not helped by the camera flying all over the place, but I believe the red arrow in the cropped picture below shows the two men:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Ls5bMK2v/Screenshot-249-a.png) (https://postimages.org/)

I calculate this image to have been taken 6-8 seconds after the headshot. It seems a bizarrely short amount of time for the two men to be already in position.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 04:47:26 PM
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 policy 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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 05:02:38 PM
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.

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. 



Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 29, 2022, 05:10:33 PM
  Again, I hope no one actually takes this seriously and are just passing the time...
No one ever takes you seriously.
You apparently are suspicious of nothing and not even very suspicious of that....
...and just passing gas time.

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'?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 05:14:55 PM
Again, in his campaign against JFK in 1960, LBJ referred to the "umbrella policy man", i.e., Neville Chamberlain, and how JFK's father supported it. This below is from the Robert Dallek book on JFK.

(https://www.drivehq.com/file/DFPublishFile.aspx/FileID9338329161/Keyvgibeuvwmrqv/umbreall%20man%20policy.JPG)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 05:26:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on July 29, 2022, 05:29:58 PM
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]

[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)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 05:34:07 PM
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]

[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)
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.

This is not new.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on July 29, 2022, 05:55:49 PM
Comparison images:


(https://i.vgy.me/2sn3Nx.png)


15-years later testifying before the HSCA:


(https://i.vgy.me/SZhWIK.png)


Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 29, 2022, 06:00:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 29, 2022, 06:12:00 PM
The HSCA testimony of Louie Steven Witt....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm

Witt stated that he was not aware that anyone was looking for an Umbrella Man for 15 years and then accidentally sees something about it in the papers. OK right  :-\ ... 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 disinterest in the events of the man he had set off to heckle. Believe what you want.

(https://i.ibb.co/j8FcZ51/HSCA-Vol4-0223b.gif) (https://ibb.co/b6nSR38)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 06:13:49 PM
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."

I specifically wrote and was referring to the "followers" of Garrison. Not all conspiracists just those that are followers and believers in Garrison. People like Oliver Stone and Jim DiEugenio.

There is no such thing as "the US govt." There are agencies and departments and divisions and thousands of different people often operating at odds with one another. That anyone thinks "the government" could pull this conspiracy off and then cover it up for decades is thinking things that are simply not possible. If you think these are all "cogs" or "things" and not real people with their own moral agency then, again, you are thinking things that are not possible.

The assassination has been investigated again and again and again. For more than 50 years. By multiple generations of Americans in "the government" and outside of it in the news media. If you think Republicans and Democrats  - who detest one another like religious sects - could get together and cover this up then you really don't know much American politics. It cannot be done. It wasn't done. And if you think the Washington Post and NY Times and CBS and NBC and PBS and others have also covered it up then....well, you're sounding a lot like Jim Garrison.




Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 29, 2022, 06:19:41 PM
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.
I agree. Does that make me deranged? 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 29, 2022, 06:21:12 PM
No one ever takes you seriously.
You apparently are suspicious of nothing and not even very suspicious of that....
...and just passing gas time.
 What are you babbling about? How do we know you're not 'deranged'?

How do we know you're not 'deranged'?

I suspect that he may not be "quite right"....  He believes in fairy tales....
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 06:23:56 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 29, 2022, 07:02:07 PM
So a Democrat and Republican walk into a room.

Democrat to Republican: "You disgust me, you're a racist neo-Nazi who wants to create a fascist country. I can barely be in a room with you."

Republican to Democrat: "Yeah, well you hate America, you've always hated the country and are little more than godless communists. All you want is power over people and to destroy everything good about this country. I want out of here!"

Democrat: "Well, okay. How about joining up with me and covering up the murder of JFK? Forever. Not just now; but future generations? Let's do it."

Republican: "Okay, we hate the crooked bastard LBJ but we'll cover up for him. And we promise that all future generations of Republicans will cover up too. It's a deal."

So the Democrat and Republican shook hands, joined arms and lived together happily ever after.

Yes they did.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 29, 2022, 07:21:03 PM
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.

Hi Steve, I was unaware of the article you posted and, I have to say, it is most convincing. I can buy that the umbrella could be seen as a symbol of appeasement from an American angle. Simkin is correct from a British point of view, this connection with the umbrella had never really been made in Britain because nearly everyone has an umbrella. Chamberlain was far more famous for waving his piece of paper but, ultimately, we are talking about an American perspective on this.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 29, 2022, 10:05:57 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on July 29, 2022, 10:44:52 PM
I posted this press photo last spring. Political protesters were using the umbrella to mock JFK as early as 1961. In fact, Witt referenced this Phoenix protest in his testimony. 

(https://img70.pixhost.to/images/105/277091444_circuit.jpg)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Chris Davidson on July 29, 2022, 10:54:43 PM
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.

(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/Umbrella1.gif)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 29, 2022, 11:23:14 PM
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.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 29, 2022, 11:29:25 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 29, 2022, 11:57:49 PM
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 ......

We are in agreement on this point.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 12:01:18 AM
I suspect that he may not be "quite right"
After seeing reply 33...I am inclined to agree.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 30, 2022, 12:14:34 AM
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 30, 2022, 12:21:15 AM
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.


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 ....
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 30, 2022, 12:31:23 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 30, 2022, 12:36:40 AM

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 ....

Mr Griffith, I feel that you've got a very good "feel" for what happened in Dallas on 11-22-63.  And the blame can't be pinned on any one group.    There were many factions who hated JFK for various reasons and trying to pin the blame on any one group is an exercise in futility .....  But nobody could have pulled of the coup if they didn't have the backing of J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Joe Elliott on July 30, 2022, 01:55:14 AM

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?
. . .

It refers to Griffith’s avatar, a photograph of the actor Viggo Mortensen playing Aragorn, a character in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. J. R. R. Tolkien’s poem about Aragon starts with:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 04:52:49 AM
Don't forget the theme of the thread....Suspicious.
As usual...the lone shooter people become skeptics in reverse.
And...I doubt that 'testimony' of Witt was ever read by these guys.
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 30, 2022, 07:48:27 AM
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.

Enlarge the gif below and you will see that DCM is waving. He does not have a raised fist.

(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/Umbrella1.gif)

What might be of interest is that, at this specific moment (which I believe to be the first shot), Hill and both motorcycle cops appear to be distracted by Umbrella Man and DCM.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 30, 2022, 08:01:29 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 30, 2022, 01:48:36 PM
We are in agreement on this point.

Thank you...so you too think it's what the assassins thought is what is relevant.....
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 30, 2022, 03:11:00 PM
From a BBC story on Neville Chamberlain and his umbrella (link below):

"Neville Chamberlain always liked to carry a big black umbrella. It was intended to project an image of the quintessential Englishman, who was always smart, prepared and, in a manner of speaking, neatly furled. When Chamberlain arrived home after meeting Hitler at Munich in 1938, he was clutching Hitler's signed piece of paper in one hand and his brolly in the other. His umbrella now took on a new and potent symbolism as a "peace umbrella" and one that would keep the German bombs from raining down on British heads. He was sent hundreds of umbrellas by a grateful public and there was even a song composed at the time that contained the lyrics, "You look swell holding your umbrella / All the world loves a wonderful fella".

Yet as war broke out in Europe, Chamberlain's trademark brolly was quickly seized upon by his enemies as a laughable symbol of his gentlemanly ineffectiveness and it became a lightening-rod for critics of appeasement. Declassified MI5 records reveal how Hitler mocked him for it - and Chamberlain's once so celebrated umbrella morphed from useful trademark into an embarrassing symbol of political weakness and pusillanimity."

The umbrella became a "lightening-rod for critics of appeasement" and "morphed from useful trademark into an embarrassing symbol of political weakness and pusillanimity."

Full piece here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07mxt94
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 30, 2022, 03:30:05 PM
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 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's irrelevant what you or I believe..... If the Cubans thought that the umbrella would remind JFK about his failure to provide an air umbrella over the brigade .....then that might be the reason that "Umbrella Man" was waving that umbrella.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 30, 2022, 03:44:21 PM
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.



Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 03:57:15 PM
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?
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

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 30, 2022, 04:01:22 PM
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.

What are the odds after shots being fired with everyone else running or walking around while these two sit on the curb? The only thing missing from "UM and DCM" is them lightening some heaters after Kennedy got hit.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 30, 2022, 04:18:04 PM
Thank you...so you too think it's what the assassins thought is what is relevant.....

No.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 04:33:51 PM

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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 30, 2022, 04:40:38 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 30, 2022, 05:27:13 PM
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.

50.5 -48.5 was the tally for JFK in 1960. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for JFK with a VP from Texas winning by 2 points.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 30, 2022, 05:36:56 PM
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?

This is actually a really good point.
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 30, 2022, 05:40:34 PM
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 idea that the "City of Hate" didn't have it's fair share of rabid Republicans is a non-starter.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 05:41:58 PM
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.....
Quote
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?
 (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
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 30, 2022, 06:41:42 PM
This is actually a really good point.
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?



Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 30, 2022, 08:21:52 PM
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?

Besides his actual proof of being the "Umbrella Man" which he wasn't (Roy Hargraves) the believeability of actually saying he has the umbrella 15 years later is just another form of perjury.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 30, 2022, 09:21:36 PM
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


A gunman and an aid at the fence is something else. It's the umbrella man and DCM that I think had nothing to do with the conspiracy (which I think was a very small group and not a huge plot with many organisations involved).
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 30, 2022, 09:55:23 PM

One comment...
Quote
This is precisely how they identified the Boston bombers. Walking away calmly in the midst of chaos.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on July 30, 2022, 10:03:55 PM
If I remember correctly the Boston bombers were identified by video of them carrying backpack(s) into the area.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 30, 2022, 11:05:44 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on July 30, 2022, 11:28:17 PM
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?

You forgot to mention he bought popcorn at the theatre
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on July 30, 2022, 11:53:07 PM
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?


Too bad there wasn’t a security camera in the second floor lunch room. I would have liked to see that encounter. Oh yeah, not very many security cameras in use back then….

Edit: And LHO was seen carrying a long package into the area…
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on July 31, 2022, 12:07:03 AM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 31, 2022, 12:29:34 AM
  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 :-\
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 31, 2022, 12:48:44 AM
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.

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.
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.

Recall that the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, most notably Eleanor Roosevelt, came out strongly against Kennedy's nomination. They thought he was too young and were upset at his work with McCarthy but were particularly worried about the influence of the father, a man who was viewed very critically over his support of appeasement. It's interesting that JFK is viewed as a great liberal hero when in reality liberals at the time were suspicious about him and the influence of Kennedy Sr.

It's also interesting that the chief author of the Warren Report, Norman Redlich, represented clients called before McCarthy's committee. I can't find evidence of it but I wouldn't be surprised to see that there were some terse exchanges between JFK and Redlich over questioning of his clients. Anyone who thinks Redlch would coverup for a right wing murder of JFK is thinking some foolish things.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2022, 12:55:31 AM
The idea that the "City of Hate" didn't have it's fair share of rabid Republicans is a non-starter.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2022, 12:59:47 AM
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

LOL.  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. 


Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 31, 2022, 01:03:24 AM
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.

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 that Connally won. He finished near the bottom on the Democratic primary.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 31, 2022, 01:14:23 AM
There once was a theory for Umbrella man raising the umbrella to signal a gunman on the grassy knoll positioned at the far sewer drain that the JFK limo was soon to be in LOS of that gunman.

However this theory kind of fell by the wayside for the following reasons:

1. The angle for the LOS picture for the far  sewer drain gunman is so narrow between Gov Connally in front of JFK that it’s incredible difficult and highly improbable to score a hit at the head (8” diameter moving target)

2.The entrance/exit wound path of JFKs head turned leftward and his leaning left, does not line up with the far sewer drain position.

3. The head of JFK moves forward at impact In frame 312-313.

4. The blood spray appears to be all going forward and up and there does not appear to be any resultant spray ejected from the rear of JFKs head.

5. Fragmentation of an 6.5mm ball nosed MC bullet fired into the front of the skull would have all exited to the rear of limo and none would have bounced backward hitting the windshield causing a crack or making a dent on the rear view mirror frame.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2022, 01:16:10 AM
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.
The responsibility belongs solely to Oswald himself.   
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 31, 2022, 01:24:03 AM
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.
The responsibility belongs solely to Oswald himself.
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.

We see this with the Garrison followers: Oliver Stone, the risible DiEugenio. They use JFK's death as a political weapon to go after those who opposed the Soviet Union. Stone thinks the Cold War - all of it - was due to US's policies. Moscow had nothing to do with it. And those Cold War militarists killed JFK because he was going to expose their corruption. It's hooey.

Dallas didn't kill JFK. Even Marxism didn't kill JFK. One angry lost guy for whatever reason - there likely was a political factor involved - killed JFK.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 31, 2022, 01:40:57 AM
Agree with Richard with regard to Republican party being the only suspects. There were as many if not more Democrats influenced by the MIC as were Republicans.

LBJ himself who immediately reversed JFK foreign policy towards Vietnam just 3 days after JFK was dead and LBJ who readily accepted the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a reason to authorized war against Vietnam.

And it’s LBJ’s good friend , Harold  Byrd , the owner of the TSBD, who was awarded by LBJ the contract to build A-7 Corsair fighter planes to be used in Vietnam.

And everyone has seen or heard the recording of LBJ saying the “N” word and everyone probably has read what LBJs mistress claimed LBJ said about “after tonight those blankety blank Kennedys will never bother me again” .

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 31, 2022, 01:42:58 AM
  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.

    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)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Zeon Mason on July 31, 2022, 03:14:27 AM

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.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on July 31, 2022, 10:16:50 AM
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?

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 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.



Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jim Hawthorn on July 31, 2022, 12:08:44 PM
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.

Now that is a more credible theory. Distractions and NOT a signals of any sort.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 31, 2022, 02:30:53 PM
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.

Shooting at  Walker and also at JFK who forced Walker to resign and sent Walker to a mental institution . does seem to be contradictory.

Unless the plan was to gain favor with Fidel Castro......Castro believed that both Walker and Kennedy were his foes.....  He probably would have shook the hand of any person who attempted to kill them.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on July 31, 2022, 02:33:45 PM
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.

In America, Chamberlain was not "very much associated" with the umbrella. Louie Witt was 14/15 years old when Chamberlain and Joe Kennedy appeased Hitler. Furthermore, Witt said in his HSCA testimony that until he allegedly spoke with a coworker, he had no clue that the umbrella had anything to do with Chamberlain or Joseph Kennedy. Go read his testimony.

When Witt was pressed on this point, he said he just knew the "vague generalities" that it had "something to do with something that happened years ago with the senior Joe Kennedy when he was Ambassador to England."

When asked to provide more detail about what he thought the umbrella would symbolize, he said that during a coffee break at work "someone" had told him that "It had something to do with . . . when the senior Mr. Kennedy was Ambassador to England, and the Prime Minister, some activity they had had in appeasing Hitler."

Conveniently, Witt could not remember who the "someone" was, where at work this conversation occurred, or even how the subject came up.

Witt's testimony contains some other odd statements. He claimed that after he arrived at the grassy knoll, he did not realize the motorcade was coming until after it had turned onto Elm Street and was coming toward him: "the motorcade had already made the turn and was coming down Elm Street going west on Elm before I became aware it was there." He didn't hear or see the motorcade as it turned from Main Street onto House Street and then drove down Houston Street?! Really? Really? Humm, was he in a daze or something?

Another oddity: Witt said he heard shots but didn't realize they were shots because "they were so close together" that they sounded like a "string of firecrackers." He said that "somehow" the shots didn't register with him as being shots. So we're supposed to believe that he had no clue that any shots had been fired until later that day. Really? As he kept testifying, he gave critical thinkers reasons to doubt this claim.

Incredibly, Witt claimed that he did not even realize that JFK had been shot, that he only learned that JFK had been shot later on! But Witt then contradicted himself and said that the dark complected man sitting next to him told him "they done shot them folks," and that a few seconds later a woman told him "They shot those people right before my eyes."

Uh, okay. So Witt supposedly heard louds sounds, felt that "something terrible" had happened, had a man tell him seconds after the shooting that "they done shot them folks," and had a woman tell him seconds later that "they shot those people right before my eyes," but he did not realize that JFK had been shot until later that day. If Witt was actually there, you truly have to wonder about his sentience, his powers of observation, his comprehension of reality.

I know you gobble up his nonsensical story without question, but rational people will wonder whether someone would really bother to use an umbrella on a sunny day to annoy JFK as he's riding by in a limo after a coworker claimed that holding an umbrella would annoy JFK. Rational people will also find it hard to believe that Witt had no idea that JFK had been shot until later that day. I mean, come on.

And, I agree with those who find it a little hard to swallow that Witt had kept that same umbrella for 15 years.

I agree with Russ Baker's analysis of Witt's story:

Only a very unusual 15-year-old American (Witt’s approximate age in 1938) would have strong feelings about a British prime minister’s behavior, and still harbor those feelings a quarter century later. It is even harder to accept that he could believe JFK, himself a young man in 1938, might “get” the message somehow via the umbrella.

I agree. It makes no sense whatsoever. It smacks of being a contrived story to provide some explanation, any explanation, for the presence and actions of Umbrella Man.

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.

Your description of the events in the Zapruder film is another example of your seemingly habitual distortion.

Russ Baker's enlargement seems to show that the DCM's fist is clinched while in the air--he certainly does not appear to be "waving":

https://whowhatwhy.org/video/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/

Uh, yeah, you can sit on a curb with a small radio in your back pocket.

Whatever you want to choose to see about Umbrella Man's actions, he clearly does not appear to be "fiddling with the umbrella, trying to get it open." Give me a break. Had he never opened an umbrella before? It's a pretty easy, simple, quick thing to do. Anyway, Umbrella man is definitely not "fiddling with that umbrella trying to get it open." See the enlargements in Baker's article and in Ecker's article:

https://whowhatwhy.org/video/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/
http://www.ronaldecker.com/umbrella.html

Umbrella Man can be seen in photos taken by Willis, Bothun, and Bond, and in several Z frames. The umbrella is open in all the photos/frames before Z313. At no time does Umbrella Man appear to be trying to open the umbrella, much less "fiddling" with it. Witt's problematic description of his alleged actions is simply incompatible with the photographic record.

What's more, who would sit down right next to a stranger on the curb under any circumstances? Why would anyone do that? Unless, of course, you were not strangers.





Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 31, 2022, 02:35:58 PM
 quote-  Steve M. Galbraith ...
Quote
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.   
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 31, 2022, 02:57:05 PM
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 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.
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on July 31, 2022, 03:11:39 PM
  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.
The JBS?---Alive and well in Texas---
https://www.texasobserver.org/the-john-birch-society-sees-a-renaissance-in-north-texas/
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on July 31, 2022, 03:14:49 PM
    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. 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on July 31, 2022, 04:32:00 PM
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on July 31, 2022, 08:32:43 PM
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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Gerry Down on August 01, 2022, 12:10:04 AM
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)

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Gerry Down on August 01, 2022, 12:10:24 AM
(https://s4.gifyu.com/images/Umbrella1.gif)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 01, 2022, 01:17:23 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: James Hackerott on August 01, 2022, 02:15:47 AM
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.
(https://i.imgur.com/bBEKXPn.jpg)

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on August 01, 2022, 02:31:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 01, 2022, 05:38:06 PM
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).

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

Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 01, 2022, 07:07:37 PM
Why does everybody still ignore the dark skinned walkie talkie man?
He is practically holding hands with TUM.

(https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/images/umbrella.gif)

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

(http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/dcm3.gif)
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod/images/the-man-with-the-umbrella-the-man-with-the-radio-giving-the-news-photo-1596229699.jpg?resize=640:*)

Those are still pictures that can't speak to the umbrella being buffeted by the wind.
There were gale force winds that day?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on August 01, 2022, 08:34:33 PM
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.

You need to read Witt's testimony.
He states he was putting the umbrella up when the shots were fired. He didn't see anything because the umbrella was in front of him while he was putting it up.
This is absolutely refuted by the film/photographic evidence.
How do you explain that?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 02, 2022, 06:11:08 AM

How do you explain that?
Also...explain the radio man.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Gerry Down on August 02, 2022, 01:08:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 02, 2022, 08:22:31 PM
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?
I mean come on...he was a witness to a homicide....so was umbrella dude but what did they do?---casually stroll away in opposite directions while most others were scurrying around and seemingly wanted to confront what happened.
Why didn't this "enthusiastic JFK fan" stick around and scrutinize the situation rather than dodge the area and seemingly slip away?

(http://whowhatwhy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/dcm3.gif)

It looks like this guy could be speaking into a transistor radio? two-way radio...suspicious if so.
 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Duncan MacRae on August 02, 2022, 09:24:44 PM
Possible Photograph blur streaks in the photograph? ::) I've highlighted four streaks all with the same angle. There are many more in the full photograph. 

(https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/streaks.jpg)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 02, 2022, 09:47:30 PM
You need to read Witt's testimony.
He states he was putting the umbrella up when the shots were fired. He didn't see anything because the umbrella was in front of him while he was putting it up.
This is absolutely refuted by the film/photographic evidence.
How do you explain that?

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).

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/displayimage.php?pid=7482&fullsize=1)

Wind whipping the coats of some of the women.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on August 02, 2022, 11:24:20 PM
"He was moving the umbrella up and down!"

Well how else was he supposed to get Kennedy's attention?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on August 03, 2022, 01:18:49 AM
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).

You have clearly not read Witt's HSCA testimony yet you feel qualified to comment on it.
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.

In the post you are responding to I pointed out a clear contradiction in Witt's testimony when compared to the film/photo record and asked you to explain it :

[Witt] states he was putting the umbrella up when the shots were fired. He didn't see anything because the umbrella was in front of him while he was putting it up.
This is absolutely refuted by the film/photographic evidence.
How do you explain that?


You're "explanation" was meaningless in that you simply repeated the point I was making in my post but ignored the part about how it was refuted by the film/photo record:

Witt seems to be referring to missing the President being wounded during one of the moments when he was struggling with umbrella


Yes Gerry, he is referring to missing the President being wounded while he was struggling with his umbrella. The point being that in Willis5 (z202) and Betzner3 (z186) the umbrella is already in the raised position. These photos were taken before the President was wounded.
This is photographic evidence that Witt is not being truthful.
UM is stood in position with his umbrella raised before the President arrives at his position, before JFK is wounded.
If Witt's story has any credence, he is there to heckle JFK, his sole focus is JFK. UM is in position, umbrella raised, before the limo reaches him, as the limo reaches him he raises his umbrella (as shown in the Z-film). If this is indeed Witt, he must have been watching JFK as he came closer, at the moment JFK reached his position he raised his umbrella in order to heckle JFK.
The problem is, he must have seen JFK shot through the throat and then watched as JFK's head explodes.

But Witt doesn't see these things.
Witt testifies that he is sitting on the grass when he is first aware of the motorcade coming down Elm Street. He apparently doesn't hear the crowds cheering as it passes down Houston.
He stands and begins to walk forward, as he does he begins to open his umbrella.
For some unspecified reason he is having trouble putting up an umbrella.
As he holds it in front of him, it obscures his view and the shots ring out (although he is not aware of the shots).

"...At that time I was moving forward with this umbrella in front of me, I was not aware of what was happening, even though I had heard the shots, until the movement, all this activity with the cars. That was my first awareness, and it was at this point I just sat down."

The "activity with the cars" is a reference to the limo slowing down:

"...As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements: I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me. The next thing I saw...there was a car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things."


According to Witt he couldn't see anything because of the umbrella until the moment the limo slowed down and Hill jumped from one car to the next. This is patently not true for Umbrella Man. He is stood there, umbrella raised, with a clear view of JFK and the oncoming limo, way before it begins to slow down.
What's more, the moment Hill jumps from the follow-up car is the moment of the head-shot. JFK's head explodes but Witt doesn't see it. Really?
He sees Hill jump, he sees Jackie climbing onto the trunk but he doesn't see the head-shot?
Smells like  BS: to me.

Quote
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.

I'm not sure what this ramble is about but at no point have I ever said "Witt said he never saw the President."
It was a really weird thing for you to just blurt out.
But now you come to mention it, there is not a single mention of seeing JFK in his testimony. It was supposed to be the whole point of his visit to Dealey Plaza. In fact, there are two moments in his testimony that stand out in this regard:

"Mr. GENZMAN. Did President Kennedy see your umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I have no way of knowing. I really don't."


Why does Witt "have no way of knowing"?. If he was UM, and he was really there to heckle JFK, he would've been staring right at JFK.

After describing the limo slowing down Witt states:

"I recall there was a movement in the President's car. By this time-I don't recall seeing the President . He must have-I
am sure he was down."


Witt makes a point of saying he doesn't see the President but at no time, during the whole of his testimony, does he mention seeing the President.

Quote
You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting the mercenary character assassination of a fine Republican Goldwaterite.

Witt's testimony stinks.
If you'd read it you'd know.
You should be ashamed as a researcher.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 03, 2022, 04:34:35 AM
You have clearly not read Witt's HSCA testimony yet you feel qualified to comment on it.
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.

In the post you are responding to I pointed out a clear contradiction in Witt's testimony when compared to the film/photo record and asked you to explain it :

[Witt] states he was putting the umbrella up when the shots were fired. He didn't see anything because the umbrella was in front of him while he was putting it up.
This is absolutely refuted by the film/photographic evidence.
How do you explain that?


You're "explanation" was meaningless in that you simply repeated the point I was making in my post but ignored the part about how it was refuted by the film/photo record:

Witt seems to be referring to missing the President being wounded during one of the moments when he was struggling with umbrella

Yes Gerry, he is referring to missing the President being wounded while he was struggling with his umbrella. The point being that in Willis5 (z202) and Betzner3 (z186) the umbrella is already in the raised position. These photos were taken before the President was wounded.
This is photographic evidence that Witt is not being truthful.

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.

Quote
UM is stood in position with his umbrella raised before the President arrives at his position, before JFK is wounded.
If Witt's story has any credence, he is there to heckle JFK, his sole focus is JFK. UM is in position, umbrella raised, before the limo reaches him, as the limo reaches him he raises his umbrella (as shown in the Z-film). If this is indeed Witt, he must have been watching JFK as he came closer, at the moment JFK reached his position he raised his umbrella in order to heckle JFK.

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?

Quote
The problem is, he must have seen JFK shot through the throat and then watched as JFK's head explodes.

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.

Quote
But Witt doesn't see these things.
Witt testifies that he is sitting on the grass when he is first aware of the motorcade coming down Elm Street. He apparently doesn't hear the crowds cheering as it passes down Houston.

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.

Quote
He stands and begins to walk forward, as he does he begins to open his umbrella.
For some unspecified reason he is having trouble putting up an umbrella.
As he holds it in front of him, it obscures his view and the shots ring out (although he is not aware of the shots).

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.

Quote
"...At that time I was moving forward with this umbrella in front of me, I was not aware of what was happening, even though I had heard the shots, until the movement, all this activity with the cars. That was my first awareness, and it was at this point I just sat down."

The "activity with the cars" is a reference to the limo slowing down:

"...As I was moving forward I apparently had this umbrella in front of me for some few steps. Whereas other people I understand saw the President shot and his movements: I did not see this because of this thing [the umbrella] in front of me. The next thing I saw...there was a car stopping, the screeching of tires, the jamming on of brakes, motorcycle patrolman right there beside one of the cars. One car ran upon the President's car and a man jumped off and jumped on the back. These were the scenes that unfolded as I reached the point to where I was seeing things."


According to Witt he couldn't see anything because of the umbrella until the moment the limo slowed down and Hill jumped from one car to the next. This is patently not true for Umbrella Man. He is stood there, umbrella raised, with a clear view of JFK and the oncoming limo, way before it begins to slow down.

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.

Quote
What's more, the moment Hill jumps from the follow-up car is the moment of the head-shot. JFK's head explodes but Witt doesn't see it. Really?

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.

Quote
He sees Hill jump, he sees Jackie climbing onto the trunk but he doesn't see the head-shot?
Smells like  BS: to me.

I'm sure you smell BS a lot where you're at.

Quote
I'm not sure what this ramble is about but at no point have I ever said "Witt said he never saw the President."
It was a really weird thing for you to just blurt out.
But now you come to mention it, there is not a single mention of seeing JFK in his testimony. It was supposed to be the whole point of his visit to Dealey Plaza. In fact, there are two moments in his testimony that stand out in this regard:

"Mr. GENZMAN. Did President Kennedy see your umbrella?
Mr. WITT. I have no way of knowing. I really don't."


Why does Witt "have no way of knowing"?. If he was UM, and he was really there to heckle JFK, he would've been staring right at JFK.

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.

Quote
After describing the limo slowing down Witt states:

"I recall there was a movement in the President's car. By this time-I don't recall seeing the President . He must have-I
am sure he was down."


Witt makes a point of saying he doesn't see the President but at no time, during the whole of his testimony, does he mention seeing the President.

Witt's testimony stinks.
If you'd read it you'd know.
You should be ashamed as a researcher.

You can't even keep track of the posts that address your points in this Topic thread.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2022, 01:25:56 PM
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.

Here is the whole film once again.....

One might notice that the flag on the limo is not really blowing around all that much.
Ladies skirts and dresses aren't moving in the wind either.
 
Quote
The wind raises up the umbrella
The wind? The wind raised up the umbrella and rotated it? So you didn't need a guy there ...just an umbrella :D :D
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 03, 2022, 03:59:12 PM

Here is the whole film once again.....

One might notice that the flag on the limo is not really blowing around all that much.

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.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/ae/Ou60YAeR_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Same flag pinned
against fender earlier.
 
(https://images2.imgbox.com/d0/6a/ULAuu6zA_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
When flag became
pinned against fender.
 
(https://images2.imgbox.com/db/52/9dFW1FbR_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Presidential flag being
whipped by the wind.
(http://) (https://imgbox.com/9dFW1FbR)
Quote
Ladies skirts and dresses aren't moving in the wind either.
Sure, Skeptic-Tank.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_image012~0.jpg)(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The ladies seem to be
leaning into the wind.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_redcoat.gif)(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
In Anybody-But-Oswald Land,
there's no wind, just hot air.

Quote
The wind? The wind raised up the umbrella and rotated it? So you didn't need a guy there ...just an umbrella :D :D

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 03, 2022, 04:44:42 PM
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.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://images2.imgbox.com/f1/ae/Ou60YAeR_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Same flag pinned
against fender earlier.
 
(https://images2.imgbox.com/d0/6a/ULAuu6zA_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
When flag became
pinned against fender.
 
(https://images2.imgbox.com/db/52/9dFW1FbR_o.gif)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Presidential flag being
whipped by the wind.
(http://) (https://imgbox.com/9dFW1FbR)Sure, Skeptic-Tank.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_image012~0.jpg)(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The ladies seem to be
leaning into the wind.
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_redcoat.gif)(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
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.
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.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on August 03, 2022, 06:22:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2022, 08:31:29 PM
Quote
A guy waving an umbrella.. it's a signal.
Would someone want to bet that it has never happened before?
Quote
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.
 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 03, 2022, 09:19:42 PM
Would someone want to bet that it has never happened before?  Naturally...the car is moving. The ladies loose skirts and dresses are not moving even slightly. Argue that [most likely will]  No one here has claimed that Witt was a conspirator in the assassination.
 

Skeptic-Tank's claim that only the line-of-travel moved the flag (if so, why only one flag?). Seems more like a cross-wind going on with the Presidential flag bowing off to the side at times.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_29_293.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_31_930.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_32_429.jpg) 

Wind blowing open Hill's and Moorman's heavy fall coats.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_35_899.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_36_200.jpg)  (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/Zapruder%20Frames/Zapruder%20Frames/normal_Cold_Case_JFK_mp4_snapshot_50_36_733.jpg)  (http://)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 03, 2022, 10:58:11 PM
Quote
Wind blowing open Hill's and Moorman's heavy fall coats.
Now you weighed their coats?  :D
You are out on strikes [I gave you 4] with the wind buffeting the umbrella.
 There is still not enough to demonstrate it taking off like a kite...sorry.
The film shows it rising perfectly upward as a wounded [not yet destroyed] JFK goes by.
Your TUM remains suspiciously suspicious.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 04, 2022, 03:32:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 04, 2022, 05:40:01 PM
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?

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 04, 2022, 07:23:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on August 04, 2022, 10:26:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 04, 2022, 11:26:22 PM
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.

The actions of those folks make perfect sense.  From the Elm St. perspective, the "grassy knoll" area is in close proximity to the location where JFK was shot AND appears to offer the most likely place for seclusion for an assassin.  We know, however, from our knowledge of that area, that the backside of the grassy knoll tree line and fence is open to half of Dallas.  No assassin could possibly stand there out in the open, commit the act, and escape unnoticed.  It is absurd.  Have you been there?  That area is wide open. 

The witnesses who headed toward the GK had no clue where the shots originated due to the sound distortions.  They didn't see a shooter there.  Visually the grassy knoll area was the most likely place for the reasons noted.  Someone headed there and others followed like sheep.  A perfectly reasonable act under the circumstances even with no shooter from that location.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 04, 2022, 11:55:48 PM
It seems the folks on the infield by then would have been hearing sirens from the direction in which they ran. The only viable pathway was the one with the steps that ran north off the Elm sidewalk. Those steps led to an opening between the wooden fence and the Pergola shelter.

I don't think there was anything unfolding in the Plaza infield, other then the cars and buses at the end of the motorcade going through. Phil Willia said he wondered why they were running into the parking lot when he knew the shots came from the Depository. The 2013 "NOVA" special on the assassination suggested shots fired from the Depository could be perceived as coming from the Underpass and behind the Pergola, depending on where one stood.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on August 05, 2022, 03:13:14 AM
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)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on August 05, 2022, 10:38:20 AM
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.

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.
Witt states that the first thing he saw was the limo slowing down and Hill jumping off one vehicle and onto the other. This is the moment of the headshot at z312. However, in Willis5 (z202), we see the umbrella in the raised position, and UM has a clear LoS to the limo. This is 6 seconds before the headshot.

(https://i.postimg.cc/1zDJb8bz/Willis5a.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

Betzner3 shows the umbrella was in the raised position even earlier,at z186:

(https://i.postimg.cc/Wp5n7Jsq/Betzner3-Crop.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)

This is 7 seconds before the headshot!


There is something seriously wrong with Witt's HSCA testimony.
And because of this massive discrepancy between Witt's testimony and the film/photo record, Jerry has felt compelled to introduce the "Organ Buffeting Theory". In this delightful fairy-tale the reason Witt's view is obscured is not due to him raising the umbrella but because the umbrella was buffeted by the wind.

I'll let that sink in for a minute.

Although Jerry has disingenuously insisted on a number of occasions that Witt mentioned the umbrella being buffeted by the wind - this is not true. Nowhere in his testimony does Witt mention the wind or buffeting or anything of that nature. This is purely Jerry's invention.
Witt is absolutely clear - his view is obscured as he puts the umbrella up. That's that.

In his post Jerry provides this helpful gif to demonstrate the perils of buffeting:

(https://i.ibb.co/myFbKSC/American-Horror-Story-Coven-Umbrellas.gif)

Please note that although the umbrella is being buffeted at no point is the lady's vision obscured.

The UM had an unobscured LoS to the limo at least seven seconds before Witt claims to have become aware of the action.
The umbrella was up before a single shot had been fired - in contrast with Witt's testimony where all three shots are fired while he is messing with the umbrella.
How can Witt's testimony be so different from the film/photo evidence?
It really is suspicious.

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 05, 2022, 12:25:48 PM
Wind Factor Dealey Plaza

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

1055 57 SW 10

1130 WSW 12 14

1155 63 WSW 13 15

1230 W 13 15

1255 67 WNW 17 20

1330 WNW 17+25

1355 69 WNW 19+26
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 05, 2022, 03:04:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on August 05, 2022, 03:18:13 PM
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.

The wind currents around buildings, trees, etc can sometimes increase in velocity as it is squeezed between structures. A wind from the west at 10 to 13 mph might have been substantially higher in velocity as it entered Dealey Plaza and the structures there.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 05, 2022, 04:35:50 PM
The wind currents around buildings, trees, etc can sometimes increase in velocity as it is squeezed between structures. A wind from the west at 10 to 13 mph might have been substantially higher in velocity as it entered Dealey Plaza and the structures there.

The "Urban Canyon Effect" explains why, when the limousine drove up Houston, the flags on the car were blowing opposite to the wind direction (that is, from the east, rather than from the west as in the weather report for that time).

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Altgens5Unger.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Altgens05 showing flags affected by wind redirected off the building facade.

(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/willis02.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Air pressure is less at open building
corners, so deflection is less.

 
(https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/D-194.jpg)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Dorman frame showing flags blowing towards the west;
woman's jacket is being buffeted.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
 
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Flow_regimes_in_a_street_canyon.png/562px-Flow_regimes_in_a_street_canyon.png)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Diagram of Canyon Effect wind.
 
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Now we wait for some JFK Conspiracy Loon to claim Canyon Effect is a "myth" and that the wind really was blowing from the east, opposite to how the wind is blowing in the Zapruder film. If the Loon is also a Trump supporter, it won't be long.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on August 05, 2022, 05:20:55 PM
JFK fixing his hair with his hand after it was mussed by the wind.

(https://img75.pixhost.to/images/98/298202371_weaver.jpg)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 05, 2022, 10:20:13 PM
Wind Factor Dealey Plaza

NCDC - National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce - Weather Bureau
Surface Weather Observations
Dallas, Texas (Dallas Love Field) NOV 22 1963
Time Temp Direction Knots MPH
1155 63 WSW 13 15
 1230 W 13 15
The only thing windy around here are the critics ... that don't see anything dubious about anything unless it points to Lee Oswald and only Lee Oswald.
There are pictures/film clip of an umbrella being raised just as the limo goes by...just as shots are fired and right before the strike to the head [another incredibly remarkable coincidence] In the Witt testimony..I did not find him saying 'wind', 'buffeted' or blown around. I could have missed it maybe.

 https://weatherspark.com/h/m/8813/1963/11/Historical-Weather-in-November-1963-in-Dallas-Texas-United-States
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Michael T. Griffith on August 06, 2022, 12:49:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 06, 2022, 03:33:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 06, 2022, 03:44:01 PM
Or perhaps this demonstrates that human beings don't remember sudden, unexpected events with the same degree of precision as a film of the event.  There is not a scintilla of credible evidence to suggest this person had anything to do with the assassination.  Minor discrepancies in his recollection do not equate to his involvement in a conspiracy.  It also makes no narrative sense for the fantasy conspirators to have a person in the open waving around an umbrella and drawing such attention to himself that we are discussing it six decades later.  That is laughable.
As we know, if you go back and read the accounts of many of the people in Dealey Plaza and compare those accounts with the films and photos you can see numerous examples of inconsistencies, of inaccuracies, of gaps in what they say versus what we can see. We don't have small cameras in our head recording things. Cameras that then play back what was recorded.

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

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

You can't examine Witt's action in isolation. You have to look at the totality of evidence. And that totality completely demolishes the idea that he was signalling a sniper team. But in conspiracy world, singling out one action is sufficient evidence indicating a conspiracy. Everything else that undermines that is ignored. We can also see this in this bizarre "prayer man" thread.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Steve M. Galbraith on August 06, 2022, 04:15:20 PM
This thread is just another sad example of the refusal of WC apologists to see what is so plainly obvious. Witt's account of his alleged actions markedly contradicts Umbrella Man's actions seen in the photographic evidence, not to mention that his account raises questions about his sentience and comprehension.
This wasn't the WC; this was the HSCA that came to the conclusion that Witt was not involved in the assassination. What the WC had to do with this issue is irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 06, 2022, 07:14:54 PM
Where’s the evidence that Witt was even the umbrella man?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 06, 2022, 07:31:04 PM
You said in your original post that you rejected Witt's explanation that it was a political act, a heckling of JFK, because there was no evidence that the umbrella was used as a political symbol. Because of that, i.e., no evidence that it was used this way, his explanation was false.

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

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

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

The American Prospect ( Link (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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Sean Kneringer on August 06, 2022, 08:13:57 PM
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.

He was testifying 15 years after the fact and never claimed to be a buff. There were Dealey Plaza witnesses who got things wrong on the day of the assassination, let alone 15 years Later. Some congressional jackass had the temerity to ask him if he was ever a member of the KKK. I would've stood up and left immediately.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Paul J Cummings on August 07, 2022, 11:53:28 PM
Where’s the evidence that Witt was even the umbrella man?

He's not and his testimony was purgery.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Charles Collins on August 08, 2022, 06:43:21 PM
This is from an account written on the evening of 11/22/63 by one of the motorcade motorcycle escort officers. It can be found in J.C. Bowles’ rebuttal to the HSCA acoustical fiasco. Bowles doesn’t identify him by name. But it is apparently D.L. Jackson. They were traveling on Main Street near Akard.



About this time I saw ahead of me standing in the street a lady holding an umbrella, the type that had a long metal piece on the tip. I rode up beside Jim Chaney forcing people to back up but this lady didn't right then. An Agent left his car and got on the rear of the presidential car. I rode closer to her forcing her back into the crowd. After we passed her the agent went back to his car.

Further evidence that umbrellas were a known symbol for showing dissatisfaction regarding the Kennedys’ policies.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 09, 2022, 11:49:40 PM
... a lady holding an umbrella...
Further evidence that umbrellas were a known symbol for showing dissatisfaction regarding the Kennedys’ policies.
Nah...that was Mary Poppins :-\

You [Jerry Organ] have clearly not read Witt's HSCA testimony yet you feel qualified to comment on it.
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.
Is that what he is? Actually, Organ is a skeptic [skeptical of skepticism]

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--
 https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 10, 2022, 12:05:20 AM
The Loons think it inconceivable that a conservative protestor living in Dallas at that time would be so extreme to show up with an umbrella to tie Kennedy to "appeasement" of international Communism.

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

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

The American Prospect ( Link (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.
The Loons huh? Well that leaves me out because I have been posting this very idea since I joined up here.
H L Hunt...hated Kennedy
His pals LBJ, J E Hoover, Earl Cabell, Henry Wade [and certain Dallas Police did too]
The crime bosses hated JFK, certain in military, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, also.
They were the stew that produced the ambush. If you believe Witt then see where he testified that the shots went off like a string of firecrackers.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 10, 2022, 12:25:48 AM
The Loons huh? Well that leaves me out because I have been posting this very idea since I joined up here.

I take it, then, that you're OK with "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." Or do you find that inconceivable like the Loons?

Quote
H L Hunt...hated Kennedy
His pals LBJ, J E Hoover, Earl Cabell, Henry Wade [and certain Dallas Police did too]
The crime bosses hated JFK, certain in military, CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, also.
They were the stew that produced the ambush. If you believe Witt then see where he testified that the shots went off like a string of firecrackers.

"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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 10, 2022, 05:01:34 AM
 

"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--- an act or instance of lying concealed so as to attack by surprise; an act or instance of attacking unexpectedly from a concealed position. 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 10, 2022, 02:38:15 PM
Ambush, as in 'surprise attack' is the word I introduced to describe Oswald's actions regarding Kennedy and Tippit.
I also used 'in cold blood' (without feeling or mercy; ruthlessly) especially regarding Tippit

Stay tuned for further
word-nourishment, kiddies

(https://i.postimg.cc/fWF27vK9/CHICK-FEED.png)

 ;) ;) ;)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 10, 2022, 04:10:38 PM
Ambush, as in 'surprise attack' is the word I introduced ... actions regarding Kennedy and Tippit...Stay tuned for further
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 10, 2022, 05:56:36 PM
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 irony of this line of logic.  It also means that Oswald was not hiding when he murdered Tippit.  He did it in plain sight in the presence of numerous witnesses who confirmed that he was the person who pulled the trigger.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 10, 2022, 07:01:18 PM
The usual “Richard Smith”  BS:

There weren’t “numerous witnesses” who saw anybody pull a trigger.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 10, 2022, 07:11:18 PM
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....
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 11, 2022, 07:27:39 PM
Back to the Umbrella Man...First to last visible frame of the umbrella by the road sign.
Appears to rise straight up unhindered.....


(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z206.jpg) (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z210.jpg) (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z215.jpg) (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z220.jpg)(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z225.jpg) (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z230.jpg)(https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z235.jpg) (https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z237.jpg)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 11, 2022, 07:57:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 11, 2022, 08:45:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Dan O'meara on August 12, 2022, 12:01:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 07:23:38 AM
If there weren’t multiple witnesses who saw somebody pull a trigger, then why does “Richard” lie and say they did?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 12, 2022, 01:51:36 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 02:26:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 02:34:57 PM
First, “Richard” says that “numerous witnesses confirmed that he was the person who pulled the trigger”, which is a lie. Then he changes it to, “numerous witnesses identified Oswald at the scene at the moment of the shooting with a gun in his hand”, which is also a lie.

If the truth is on your side, you don’t need to lie about the evidence.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 12, 2022, 04:07:09 PM
BANG - turn to see a man pointing a gun at a person who was just shot.  Contrarian - no witness saw the suspect shoot the victim.  LOL.  They just saw the literal smoking gun.  Unreal.  An invisible man might have been present.  It's possible.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 12, 2022, 04:36:25 PM
BANG - turn to see a man pointing a gun at a person who was just shot.  Contrarian - no witness saw the suspect shoot the victim.  LOL.  They just saw the literal smoking gun.  Unreal.  An invisible man might have been present.  It's possible.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 12, 2022, 05:16:35 PM
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.

(https://i.postimg.cc/sXqy3Cf7/OZZIE-SLAM-DUNK.png)
billchapman
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 12, 2022, 07:36:23 PM
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.

MOST of all:
Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
There was a Dr Pepper machine outside the Domino Room
Yet Oswald winds up on the second floor with a Coke instead

SECONDLY
This particular image uses characters that mimic Oswald's 'type'
(Someone here described Oswald as 'shabby')

(https://i.postimg.cc/zf0P09T5/3-SEPIA-AMIGOS.png)

THIRDLY
Did anyone report seeing anything AC said she saw?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 08:38:26 PM
Yet another “Richard Smith” lie. .38s do not “literally smoke”.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 08:39:44 PM
Like clown-boy knows what soft drink was “Oswald’s choice”.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 12, 2022, 09:20:40 PM
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.

Ambush = Surprise attack

Officer Tippit was not ambushed per se. No one was hiding behind a tree or bush.
_He was ambushed per revolver. And Oswald was hiding behind his guile.

The policeman [according to Ms Markham] was in full view of his assailant.
_ That's usually how surprise-attacks work

Further...according to her testimony....Officer Tippit probably knew his attacker.
_ You wouldn't just happen to be trying to turn Markham's 'neighbourly cop' thang into something sinister, now would you?

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 12, 2022, 09:29:04 PM
Like clown-boy knows what soft drink was “Oswald’s choice”.

Where did you come up with RC Cola
I saw no references to that re Oswald.
But plenty to Oswald and Dr P.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Richard Smith on August 12, 2022, 09:53:49 PM
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.

I'm not seeing the relevance to the Tippit situation.  Oswald was white.  The only policeman at the scene was killed by him.  The shooter obviously had a gun.  In the course of human history, there have been such situations as you describe, but so what in this context?  Point being that if a witness hears a gunshot and immediately looks in the direction of the shooting to see one man with a gun next to the victim it's accurate to say that they witnessed the shooting.  There was no one else at the Tippit shooting with a gun.  No one other than the person with the gun could have committed the act.  Multiple witnesses identified Oswald as the "shooter" via his possession of the gun at the scene of the shooting.   Marham saw him commit the act.  Only a pedantic CT contrarian would split hairs about characterizing these witnesses as seeing Oswald literally pull the trigger.    No one saw John Wilkes Booth pull the trigger to kill Lincoln.  They heard the gun shot, looked in that direction, and saw Booth with the gun.  No one in their right mind would ever suggest there is doubt that these witnesses had seen the shooter.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 12, 2022, 11:58:43 PM
Where did you come up with RC Cola
I saw no references to that re Oswald.
But plenty to Oswald and Dr P.

The point flew way over your head. As usual.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 13, 2022, 12:05:27 AM
So “Richard” lies about the evidence three times in a row and then declares that nobody “in their right mind” would disagree with his lies.

And that’s supposed to make them true.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 13, 2022, 12:28:57 AM

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.
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  :-\
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 13, 2022, 06:32:22 AM
The point flew way over your head. As usual.

Keep ducking, Neil
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 14, 2022, 01:18:36 AM
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  :-\

At the end of the day, 'ambush' equates with being caught off-guard
Tippit was caught off-guard
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 14, 2022, 03:48:25 AM

If the truth is on your side, you don’t need to lie about the evidence.
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"?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 14, 2022, 03:54:00 AM
At the end of the day, 'ambush' equates with being caught off-guard 
Were you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Argument with a fence post = more fun :D
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 14, 2022, 11:41:19 AM
Were you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Argument with a fence post = more fun :D

Ding-dong
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 15, 2022, 05:41:47 AM
Mr Umbrella Man was sensationally produced huh?
I guess Josiah Thomson bought the riff  6 1/2 minutes -----------

https://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 15, 2022, 07:32:52 PM
Were you caught off guard toking on that bong?
Argument with a fence post = more fun :D

(https://i.postimg.cc/PJB3tLxP/AMBUSH-OSWALD-TIPPIT.png)
billchapman
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 15, 2022, 07:34:42 PM
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"?

Here's what Hosty wrote: 

Fritz: " Where were you when he president went by the book depository?"

Oswald:   "I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom."

Fritz:  "Were you ever on the second floor around the time the president was shot?"

Oswald:  "Yeah, I went up there to get a bottle of Coca-Cola from the machine for my lunch."

Fritz: "But where were you when the president actually passed your building?"

Oswald:   "I was on the first floor in the lunchroom."

Lee did tell Fritz that he went upstairs to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke.....


 "Were you ever on the second floor around the time the president was shot?"

I doubt that Fritz asked Lee this exact question because here's no evidence that Lee actually knew what time JFK had been shot.   
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 16, 2022, 12:16:55 AM
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.....
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 01:34:06 AM
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.....

Goofball
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 16, 2022, 02:32:47 AM

Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
Cite proof of that statement.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 03:07:12 AM
Cite proof of that statement.

i looked it up
So can you
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 16, 2022, 04:01:39 AM

Dr Pepper was Oswald's choice, not RC Cola. Or Coca-Cola
Cite proof of that statement.
i looked it up
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 04:57:14 AM
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 nothing
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 16, 2022, 05:56:49 AM
What you did was nothing
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2022, 02:24:10 PM
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.

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.

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. 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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2022, 04:44:17 PM
…and Bugliosi considers this to somehow be evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy.  ::)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2022, 04:47:00 PM
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.

As opposed to taking tidbits from WC-evangelist books and plunking them down here.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 05:18:07 PM
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.

'Oswald and Dr Pepper'
> Go for it
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 06:13:37 PM
As opposed to taking tidbits from WC-evangelist books and plunking them down here.

As opposed to taking a knee at Oswald's grave; which is all anyone needs to know about you.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2022, 06:19:44 PM
Traumatic-brain-injury-boy still has yet to explain what the problem is with that.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 06:24:03 PM
Traumatic-brain-injury-boy still has yet to explain what the problem is with that.

I rest my case
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2022, 07:28:03 PM
You never stated a case.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 16, 2022, 07:36:14 PM

Marina said Oswald after-work would go get a newspaper and Dr Pepper.
That's not in testimony is it?
Quote
Bugliosi wanted more, so he telephoned Wesley Frazier who told him Oswald always got a Dr Pepper.
A hot line to Frazier?
 
Quote
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
All you have to do is read the Report-Click img for full view..........................................

(https://i.ibb.co/2g6yhVX/Screenshot-2022-08-16-at-13-28-27-escape-6th-floor-pdf.png) (https://ibb.co/2g6yhVX)
 
Enough soda. Return to TUM
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 16, 2022, 07:59:33 PM
You never stated a case.

Keep kneeling
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 16, 2022, 08:33:28 PM
I will. Right after I dine on the self-righteous indignation of cowardly clown-boys.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 16, 2022, 09:27:34 PM
That's not in testimony is it?A hot line to Frazier?
 Bugliosi wanted more---More what?  :D

"Hot line"? You think Bugliosi lived in the Bat Cave and used a shoe-phone?

(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1CARtwhVoJ_XMuxvU_72XmVY0t6AeYlQv)

Bugliosi did what's called research.

Quote
All you have to do is read the Report-Click img for full view..........................................

(https://i.ibb.co/2g6yhVX/Screenshot-2022-08-16-at-13-28-27-escape-6th-floor-pdf.png) (https://ibb.co/2g6yhVX)

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.

David Belin: "Was he carrying anything in his hands?"
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marrion Baker: "He had nothing at that time."

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 (exiting the back door was off the table; could be other officers there; exit the front door where co-workers could vouch for him--somewhat safer).

Quote
Enough soda. Return to TUM

Who introduced to this post Oswald getting a Coke? Hint: "Sk-pt-c-T-nk". ::)
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 16, 2022, 11:41:19 PM

Bugliosi did what's called research.
You seem quite infatuated there.
 
Quote
David Belin: "Was he carrying anything in his hands?"
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marrion Baker: "He had nothing at that time."
The contradiction you always conveniently ignore----
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aBTInu_OfUU/WV3x3uWqBAI/AAAAAAABMRw/_g6vClvxpJQpknWKuttxfSDWn9kT8geMQCLcBGAs/s1600/Marrion-Baker-9-23-64-Affidavit.png)
Quote
  Oswald didn't bring a lunch that day

How do you know? Were you there?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2022, 01:15:30 AM
You seem quite infatuated there.
 The contradiction you always conveniently ignore----

How do you know? Were you there? 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.

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 17, 2022, 02:05:46 AM
Bugliosi did what's called research.

More like Bugliosi’s verbose way of showing that Oswald may or may not have preferred Dr Pepper at lunch time, which proves exactly nothing about nothing.

Quote
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.

Baker’s statement said “drinking a Coke” until that part was helpfully crossed out.

Quote
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

 BS: We don’t “know” anything of the kind.

Quote
and he was seen by Mrs. Reid moments after the lunchroom encounter passing through the second floor headed for the front door

 BS: Mrs. Reid didn’t know where he was headed.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 17, 2022, 02:06:35 AM
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.

if you can find where Baker mentions a Coke in Oswald's hand prior to his testimony, let us know.

If Baker didn't tell Cheif Curry that Lee was drinking a coke....Where did Curry get that information when he was talking to reporters that evening???
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 17, 2022, 02:09:44 AM
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.

If you can find where Baker mentions the second floor lunchroom prior to his testimony, let us know.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2022, 03:18:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 17, 2022, 05:09:53 AM
'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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2022, 10:47:41 AM
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?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 17, 2022, 01:18:13 PM
Hahahaha
Since when would you ever come up with a term like 'dine on the self-righteous indignation' on your own?

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.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 17, 2022, 03:39:14 PM

 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? ?
So that "correction" probably indicates a cover up in order to match anything that shows that Oswald apparently did not haul ass down the staircase as theorized to indicate a lone assassin. SO...Baker was told to scratch it out. That written statement... also probably.. was entered into the records by accident.
And you just admitted it ???
Oswald was casually gulping a soda [doesn't matter Coke or Dr P] when he was confronted by Baker [wherever that was]
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2022, 04:00:01 PM
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.

> Self righteous is what the Bible reference is all about
> I'm right about you being the biggest Oswald Arse Kisser ever
> Show us were my support of the WC is 'trolling'
> 'Nobody ever responds to'
    18,000 views and counting

All creative people are obsessive
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2022, 04:03:49 PM
So? ?
So that "correction" probably indicates a cover up in order to match anything that shows that Oswald apparently did not haul ass down the staircase as theorized to indicate a lone assassin. SO...Baker was told to scratch it out. That written statement... also probably.. was entered into the records by accident.
And you just admitted it ???

Where did I say it was a "cover up"?

Let's see. A massive cover-up, per you, is being conducted and rather than rewrite the Baker statement and have him sign it again, they just enter the inflammatory document into the record. Your explanation is that the incriminating document was preserved "probably by accident."

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; the statements were simply used to support the WC finding that Oswald was in the second-floor lunchroom alone when encountered by Baker and Truly.

Quote
Oswald was casually gulping a soda [doesn't matter Coke or Dr P] when he was confronted by Baker [wherever that was]

Not what Truly and Baker testified to. Where they part of the "cover-up" and kept true to the "story" for their whole lives?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Bill Chapman on August 17, 2022, 07:04:01 PM
You never stated a case.

The case states itself: You taking a knee at Oswald's grave.... that's it, thats the punch line
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 17, 2022, 10:22:34 PM

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;
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.
 But what does that matter? It would be so unusual for FBI to handwrite statements for case witnesses ...they are always typed on official stationary for the record.
That Truly written statement can be found here---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3121.msg117213.html#msg117213
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 17, 2022, 11:09:40 PM
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.

I think Burnett was trying to conserve some space on the line with "Special Agent". Compare Burnett's signature with how his name is written following "signed statement to."

But nice try. ::)

Quote
But what does that matter? It would be so unusual for FBI to handwrite statements for case witnesses ...they are always typed on official stationary for the record.
That Truly written statement can be found here---
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,3121.msg117213.html#msg117213

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". Was the Coke issue even a thing in September 1964?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 18, 2022, 05:41:24 AM

These statements might have been written in the field and were needed on a "rush" basis.
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?
Quote
When Baker signed it, he didn't agree with "drinking a coke".
Well someone didn't. Why was it written then?
Quote
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]
The Warrenites couldn't have that anomaly around.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2022, 06:26:22 AM
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?

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.

Quote
Well someone didn't. Why was it written then?

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.

Quote
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..

Oh my. Such a drama queen. :D

Quote
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.

So you don't know if it the Coke issue was an matter of debate by Loons in September 1964.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 18, 2022, 01:54:13 PM
  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)
Quote
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.
You can have the last word...you always seem to want it. 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2022, 04:29:45 PM
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.

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]

You raise a very good point , Mr. Freeman.....  If Lee had just shot the president ....The logical action for him to do after hiding the rifle would have been to simply slip down to the fifth floor and act like he had been watching the parade like the three stooges were, or walk around with his clipboard and act like he was looking for books to fill an order.

Because as Several of the cops stated....  When they arrive at a crime scene they look for a person who is leaving the area while all of the likee-Lew's are gawking and trying to figure out what has happened.  If Lee had ran down those stairs and someone had seen him ....He would have attracted attention and would have became a suspect immediately, whereas if he had been doing normal routine....... 
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Walt Cakebread on August 18, 2022, 07:07:13 PM
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.

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.

If your account was factual, Mr Organ....Then why would Curry tell reporters that Oswald was such an inhuman fiend that just seconds after he shot the president he was encountered in the building by one of his officers, and he was calmly drinking a Coca Cola.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Organ on August 18, 2022, 08:48:36 PM
What does that have to do with anything?

You not understanding that if Lane was misled by random media confabulation, then maybe also Burnett?

Quote
Some 50+ spectators reported shot or shots fired from that area.

Not so fast. This tabulation says 33-Knoll direction; 64-Depository direction: Link (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/earwitnesses.htm) .

This article from a scientific journal suggests why "Knoll" witnesses tended to mislocate the source of the shots:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Why Did the Earwitnesses to the John F. Kennedy Assassination Not Agree About the Location of the Gunman?" ( Link (http://) )

   "Perhaps most importantly, both primary observers were overwhelmed by
     those rifle shots originating from the grassy knoll. Those were very loud
     and unambiguous. We are convinced that had any rifle shots actually
     originated from the knoll area on the day of the assassination, the ear-
     witnesses from that vicinity would have shown high confidence and high
     agreement about that fact. The fence on the grassy knoll was only a few
     meters to the right of the amateur photographer, A. Zapruder. Had a rifle
     shot actually originated from the grassy knoll, his startle response might
     well have knocked him sideways, off his perch on the pergola."

Marilyn Sitzman was with Zapruder and just feet from the fence corner. She said the shots all came from the Depository.

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIyQpODZQOBYY40AxpcwxpREND9EGnUadGaVT2eAfEH0pWP9fhVMDAygfeF-HLTqALfRmSRcq18JO2KhRD8mimiEEb44A5eUW_n14kb334zMtkR08-lzOfPw7S-sOZA2RQE-99Yi_nBFowBgeI8qRbrnGgeXRl6GkWbGaPK5wPgriIBIFKRFZ9CToWw/s16000/Bell%204.gif)
(GIF made by Robin Unger)
In this Mark Bell film clip of the immediate aftermath, most witnesses seem to looking towards the area of the Depository.

Quote
You can have the last word...you always seem to want it.

That's weird, even for you. Here are recent posts where I declined to have the "last word":
In fact, I'm having a hard time finding recent posts where I had any sort of last word but I'm finding some where you had the last word.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 18, 2022, 11:55:31 PM
> Self righteous is what the Bible reference is all about

You accused me of plagiarism.  Besides, you've been caught out representing the words of both Bill Brown and Vince Bugliosi as your own.  What does your holy book say about liars and hypocrites?

Quote
> 'Nobody ever responds to'
    18,000 views and counting

And not a single response.  That's gotta sting.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 18, 2022, 11:57:43 PM
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.

What's an "FBI man" doing writing a statement on behalf of a witness in the first place?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: John Iacoletti on August 18, 2022, 11:59:40 PM
The case states itself:

LOL.

Quote
You taking a knee at Oswald's grave.... that's it, thats the punch line

And you are still unable to articulate what the problem with this is.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 19, 2022, 03:16:56 AM
Another point about Umbrella Man and his dark complected buddy--
This clip just reminded me......

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqIyQpODZQOBYY40AxpcwxpREND9EGnUadGaVT2eAfEH0pWP9fhVMDAygfeF-HLTqALfRmSRcq18JO2KhRD8mimiEEb44A5eUW_n14kb334zMtkR08-lzOfPw7S-sOZA2RQE-99Yi_nBFowBgeI8qRbrnGgeXRl6GkWbGaPK5wPgriIBIFKRFZ9CToWw/s16000/Bell%204.gif)

(https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/images/umbrella.gif)

People are ducking around, hitting the ground, or otherwise affected by shots in their vicinity but those guys just calmly had a seat on the curbside and seemed quite cool, calm and collected in the midst of chaos....Why?
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 26, 2022, 12:09:48 AM

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.
 
Quote
if it the Coke
?
Quote
debate by Loons
LN stands for lone nut?
Take the L and the N and stuff 2 Os between them and what do you have?
Quote
drama queen
Nothing dramatic...just facts.
Title: Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
Post by: Jerry Freeman on August 26, 2022, 01:18:43 AM
  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.
But aside from the fact that this is the Umbrella Man thread and the Coke thing should actually be in the Baker/Truly thread...
The actual final Report states---
Quote
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"?
Is it likely that a desperate assassin would casually spin some coins in the soda machine after such an encounter?
Maybe? Then what did he do...chug it? He would have had to [if he was going to catch a bus in 7 minutes] If he did or didn't... How does anyone know that Oswald had obtained the Coke and that the bottle was full? Furthermore ... I'm not sure of the old layout of the 2nd floor lunchroom but if the Coke and candy machines were at the entry where the super and the cop came in...and Oswald was walking away from that entry [20 ft toward the end of the lunchroom] Why would Oswald have made himself walk beyond the machine and then back again to buy the soda that he seemed to want anyway?
Emphasis was placed on the part that stated that "the man was empty handed". This would certainly negate the time spent on activating a soda machine.
Yet there was some ascribed certainty that Lee did indeed possess a soda...to wit...Coca Cola after the encounter. Why? It should have been moot at that point because he had nothing in his hands [it is declared] during the encounter.
So...was the Coke issue even a thing back in Sept 1964? Well---maybe it was and then again maybe it wasn't :-\