Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: Umbrella Man: Suspicious  (Read 30831 times)

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #80 on: July 31, 2022, 01:40:57 AM »
Advertisement
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” .


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #80 on: July 31, 2022, 01:40:57 AM »


Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #81 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...
 

Fact...

Offline Zeon Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #82 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.


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #82 on: July 31, 2022, 03:14:27 AM »


Offline Dan O'meara

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3155
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #83 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:



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:



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.



« Last Edit: July 31, 2022, 10:19:51 AM by Dan O'meara »

Offline Jim Hawthorn

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #84 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.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #84 on: July 31, 2022, 12:08:44 PM »


Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7322
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #85 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.

Offline Michael T. Griffith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 929
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #86 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.





« Last Edit: July 31, 2022, 02:42:26 PM by Michael T. Griffith »

Offline Jerry Freeman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3724
Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #87 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.   

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Umbrella Man: Suspicious
« Reply #87 on: July 31, 2022, 02:35:58 PM »