Louie Steven Witt - TIM or TAM, not TUM

[Lee Forman]

The infamous umbrella man, and his strange actions on 11/22/63 were explained by the discovery of Louie Steven Witt, who testified before the HCSA, Monday, September 25, 1978 - that he in fact was 'TUM.' His rationale for bringing the umbrella to Dealey Plaza was to heckle Kennedy, and use the umbrella as an obscure and far-reaching visual reference to something regarding Joseph Kennedy and Chamberlain [Wilt?].

Witt had no idea as to the location of the parade route - he just wandered around town with his umbrella in tow until he coincidentally reached the very location where Kennedy was to receive the final shot that ended his life.

Witt further goes on further to testify that the man whom he had been standing next to, known as the 'dark complected man' [DCM], was a 'negro' that he really hadn't paid much attention to - other than the fact that he recalls him having stated repetitiously, 'They done shot dem folks.'

Following the fatal head shot and the motocade speeding off, TUM sat down on the grass beside the DCM for sometime. The DCM has never come forward.

Witt wasn't aware that there was any speculation as to the motive of TUM all these years, because he wasn't an assassination fan.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsc..._Vol4_0216b.htm

It's a tough, bigotted sell, and I'm not buying any. Witt had 15 years to view any and all photos of the incident - and in the few photos there are - TUM doesn't seem to look directly at DCM. Witt knew nothing about DCM speaking into a radio.

It has been pointed out that even the umbrella submitted for evidence appears to have a different number of spokes - per the Z-film. The umbrella inverted when it was submitted for inspection.

RB Cutler put forth a very interesting theory on a vertical, paralytic flachette firing, CIA umbrella type weapon, which I don't personally care to discuss in this topic.

Here's the only photo I could find on Louie Steven Witt. As per the previous post on Roy Hargraves - if someone could supply me with a few photos of both Witt and Hargraves, I'll present the result to the forum, cross-contrasting them both to the photos of TUM - unless of course, someone has already performed this comparison?

Lee Forman

[James Richards]

Hi Lee,

There have been several people put forward as possible TUM's. Witt is one of the more ludicrious ones and ranks right there with Ferenc Nagy. IMO

Here are some poor quality images of him below.

James

Edited June 6, 2004 by James Richards

[James Richards]

This is my opinion on our mysterious Elm Street couple. FWIW

James

[T. Folsom]

Mysterious? What on earth is mysterious about Louis Witt bringing an umbrella to Dealey Plaza to view the motorcade? The notion that the umbrella man was anything more than an interested bystander is ridiculous. There is not one shred of evidence that has EVER come forth that the man holding the umbrella had ANYTHING to do with the Kennedy assassination. And why is it unbelievable that Louis Witt would not know he was the infamous "umbrella man?" Why would he know if he was not a Kennedy assassination buff? Remember, in 1977 when the HSCA convened, the Zapruder film had only been shown on television ONE time, and that was 18 months earlier when Robert Groden illegally showed on Geraldo Rivera's "Goodnight America" program. And since that program aired at nearly midnight, MOST, MOST Americans never saw the Zapruder film. It wasn't until the Zapruder film began to receive widespread attention in the early 80s that most Americans even saw the actual film from start to finish. To attempt to create some strange theory surrounding Louis Witt is so farfetched it makes logical thinkers roll their eyes and suppress their laughter.

[Ron Ecker]

James,

Hargraves was an explosives man. If there was indeed a car bomb waiting to be used if needed out on Stemmons, why would the conspirators have their explosives man holding an umbrella in Dealey Plaza? Not good use of available personnel.

Seems to me that Hargraves would much more likely be stationed at a window with a view at the Cabana Motor Hotel, with his finger on a button, waiting for that limo to make its appearance.

[Ron Ecker]

There is not one shred of evidence that has EVER come forth that the man holding the umbrella had ANYTHING to do with the Kennedy assassination.

There is evidence, however, that the man with the umbrella, regardless of what he was doing in the plaza, was not Mr. Witt. The evidence is Witt's own testimony v. what cameras in the plaza recorded. I prefer to believe the camera.

[James Richards]

James,

Hargraves was an explosives man. If there was indeed a car bomb waiting to be used if needed out on Stemmons, why would the conspirators have their explosives man holding an umbrella in Dealey Plaza? Not good use of available personnel.

Seems to me that Hargraves would much more likely be stationed at a window with a view at the Cabana Motor Hotel, with his finger on a button, waiting for that limo to make its appearance.

Hi Ron,

First off, I think that the plotters had decided that JFK was not going to escape Dealey Plaza alive and had serious contingencies in place. What if the alleged car bomb that Hargraves rigged was placed near the Underpass and was designed to bring down the whole structure? If that is the case, the Umbrella Man was positioned in the correct spot.

Far fetched some may be thinking? So was shooting the President of the United States out in the open in a Presidential motorcade with DPD and SS in close attendence while travelling through a modern American city.

In this image of Tague standing by the Underpass below, maybe we should be looking at vehicles near where he was standing?

James

[T. Folsom]

RE Wrote: There is evidence, however, that the man with the umbrella, regardless of what he was doing in the plaza, was not Mr. Witt. The evidence is Witt's own testimony v. what cameras in the plaza recorded. I prefer to believe the cameras.

While all this sounds sinister in and of itself you really haven't said anything. What testimony are you referring to? When was the testimony given? What do his actions reveal? And most importantly...WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THE UMBRELLA MAN HAVE TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF KENNEDY???!!!??? Please be very specific about your allegations and we will discuss your "findings."

[Ron Ecker]

While all this sounds sinister in and of itself you really haven't said anything.  What testimony are you referring to?  When was the testimony given?  What do his actions reveal?  And most importantly...WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THE UMBRELLA MAN HAVE TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF KENNEDY???!!!???  Please be very specific about your allegations and we will discuss your "findings."

Why are you asking me what testimony I'm referring to, and when it was given, when the very first post in this thread says that Witt testified before "the HCSA, Monday, September 25, 1978"?

Now that you have that basic info, you can easily look up his testimony for yourself with a Google, and compare what he says he was doing when the shots were fired and what the UM is seen doing on film and in photos.

I'm not going to do the work for you, since I really have no interest in arguing with a sarcastic lone nutter, about this or anything else.

[T. Folsom]

RE: compare what he says he was doing when the shots were fired and what the UM is seen doing on film and in photos.

T. Folsom: All I can assume you are referring to is that he seemed to recall that he was still walking towards the Presidential motorcade when the shots were first fired, and the Zapruder film shows him stationary at the time of the first shot. I cannot imagine what else you are referring to as being so damning in his testimony. Of course he refers to the concrete curb as a retaining wall, my dad would call them the same thing. If you have hitched your conspiracy beliefs on his description of the curb as a "retainint wall" then you really are firing blanks. So what if he was mistaken about standing still or walking towards the President at the time of the shots? Good night, he was talking about events that occurred fifteen years earlier. The guy sitting on the curb next to the black gentleman sure looks like the same face shape of Louis Witt doesn't it? But I'm still not even sure what you are struggling to prove by thie Umbrella Man nonsense. Maybe I havenot read enough conspiracy lunacy to understand. Please explain.

[Ron Ecker]

T. Folsom: All I can assume you are referring to is that he seemed to recall that he was still walking towards the Presidential motorcade when the shots were first fired, and the Zapruder film shows him stationary at the time of the first shot. I cannot imagine what else you are referring to as being so damning in his testimony.

Did you read his testimony? If you did, you need to read more carefully. He didn't just say he was walking forward, he went on to say that he couldn't even see the president when he was being shot because he had the umbrella up in front of his face, presumably still trying to open it.

Take a look at the Z film or the photos of UM (who appears to be standing still) and see if the umbrella he's holding over his head is in any way blocking his view of the president.

T. Folsom: But I'm still not even sure what you are struggling to prove by thie Umbrella Man nonsense. Maybe I havenot read enough conspiracy lunacy to understand. Please explain.

I'm not trying to prove anything. I simply stated my opinion that Witt was not UM, and I base that on his testimony and the photographic evidence.

[T. Folsom]

But we are coming at this from different angles. You assume that Witt's memory of the sequence of events fifteen years earlier is pristine and that since his testimony doesn't jibe with the photographic evidence it must be someone else holding the umbrella that day.

I, on the other hand am maintaining that it is much logical and much more probable that Witt simply forgot the events that occurred that day. He said in his testimony that he had not told the story to anyone since the day of the events. I find it much more realistically believable that he was simply mistaken at what happened and when it happened, than to believe that Witt is some strange mystery man who comes forth in 1978 to "fool" the Committee (for some reason you have never clarified.) He wasn't paid for his testimony. He hasn't written a book on the events of that day. He hasn't become a professioinal witness receiving large sums of money to tell whatever story the inteviewer wants to hear like Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold, Ed Hoffman, or Beverlyt Oliver. What on earth would be his motive in coming forth and giving false information? He certainly want' seeking fame. You would not find one person in 900,000 across the nation that recognizes the name Louie Witt. This is certainly a dead-end road to be traveling down, in my opinion. This needs to be filed with about two-hundred other failed attempts to formulate a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

[Ron Ecker]

>But we are coming at this from different angles.

Indeed. Whenever I try to discuss the assassination with someone who sees it through the eyes of a determined lone nutter, I get a headache. Or what I shall henceforth call the Folsom Prism Blues.

>I, on the other hand am maintaining that it is much logical and much more probable that Witt simply forgot the events that occurred that day.<

I vividly recall, over 40 years later, exactly what I was doing in Gainesville, Florida when I heard about JFK being shot. But Mr. Witt, so you reason, forgot exactly what he was doing right there in Dealey Plaza, 15 years after the momentous fact, when JFK got shot only yards away from him. Pardon me if I don't respect that logic.

>What on earth would be his motive in coming forth and giving false information?<

Who knows? Perhaps it had something to do with a conspiracy, i.e. perhaps he was told or requested to do it. Ever heard of disinformation? The intelligence community is good at it.

[T. Folsom]

RE: I vividly recall, over 40 years later, exactly what I was doing in Gainesville, Florida when I heard about JFK being shot.

TF: How do you know you "vividly recall"? It very well may turn out that if you retold the story of what you were doing, where you were standing, who you were with, etc... and then suddenly, someone with a film of that day came forth and showed you, you may find that your memory was not nearly as "vivid" as you thought. You are defending an indefensible position--you claim that YOUR memory would not be wrong, but of course there is NO way to test your claim of a crystal clear memory. That's is why you make such a great conspiracy nut--you make claims that can't be tested.

RE: Who knows? Perhaps it had something to do with a conspiracy, i.e. perhaps he was told or requested to do it. Ever heard of disinformation?

TF: Typical conspiracy nonsense. No proof, no evidence, no factual basis for this nagging suspicion. Please provide the evidence that Louis Witt was a part of a conspiracy. I won't hold my breath--there is none.

By the way RE, I have to admit, "Folsom Prism Blues" WAS pretty funny. I'm still chuckling at that. Nice work.

Edited June 9, 2004 by T. Folsom

[Ron Ecker]

TF: How do you know you "vividly recall"? It very well may turn out that if you retold the story of what you were doing, where you were standing, who you were with, etc... and then suddenly, someone with a film of that day came forth and showed you, you may find that your memory was not nearly as "vivid" as you thought. You are defending an indefensible position--you claim that YOUR memory would not be wrong, but of course there is NO way to test your claim of a crystal clear memory. That's is why you make such a great conspiracy nut--you make claims that can't be tested.

You're right. I don't know where I was or what I was doing. I just think I do. You win. We don't need to correspond any further.