Umbrella Man: Suspicious

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Umbrella Man: Suspicious  (Read 6204 times)

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 642
    • JFK Assassination Web Page
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #130 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #130 on: August 06, 2022, 12:49:03 PM »

Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3509
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #131 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #131 on: August 06, 2022, 03:33:05 PM »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #132 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.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2022, 03:46:25 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #132 on: August 06, 2022, 03:44:01 PM »

Offline Steve M. Galbraith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1147
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #133 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.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2022, 07:15:31 PM by Steve M. Galbraith »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #133 on: August 06, 2022, 04:15:20 PM »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9803
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2022, 07:14:54 PM »
Where’s the evidence that Witt was even the umbrella man?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #134 on: August 06, 2022, 07:14:54 PM »

Offline Jerry Organ

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1919
  • Halifax - Canada
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #135 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 )

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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #135 on: August 06, 2022, 07:31:04 PM »

Online Sean Kneringer

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 94
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #136 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #136 on: August 06, 2022, 08:13:57 PM »

Online Paul J Cummings

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 125
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #137 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #137 on: August 07, 2022, 11:53:28 PM »

Online Charles Collins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2605
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #138 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.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2022, 06:48:43 PM by Charles Collins »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #138 on: August 08, 2022, 06:43:21 PM »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3711
  • Skeptic
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #139 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 

 

Mobile View