On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...
> In the previous paragraphs, Mark Lane showed that the Warren Commission
> discounted its own star witness, Brennan.
They thought he was in error on one detail, big deal.
> "Thus the Commission contradicted its own star witness in an essential aspect of
> his testimony—the posture of the assassin at the time of the crime.
How is it essential to know the posture of the shooter?
Brennan had the impression that the shooter was standing. The WC
concluded that this impression is erroneous. What prevents Lane from
stating these things in an honest manner like I just have?
> concluding that 'the half-open window, the arrangement of the boxes, and the
> angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position', the Commission
> considered it 'understandable, however, for Brennan to have believed that the
> man with the rifle was standing'. The Commission reached that conclusion because
> 'the window ledges in the Depository Building are lower than in most buildings'
> and 'from the street, this creates the impression that the person is standing.'
It`s not really important how he got it wrong.
> Brennan himself invalidated this explanation, for he swore that he saw the man
> in the window both stand up and sit down.
Sit down on what?
> Moreover, he testified that he saw the
> man withdraw from the window more than once: 'I saw this one man on the sixth
> floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times'. The visual
> 'impression' employed by the Commission as the basis for exempting Brennan's
> inaccurate observations from critical examination is inexplicable, save for the
> possibility that the man walked about on his knees.'"
<snicker> Suddenly Lane is without imagination. He might have noted
the window empty, and concluded the man left the window. He could have
caught sight of him after he had already stood and caught sight of him
moving away from the window. Possibilities abound, Lane`s inability to
apply critical examination to his conclusion is inexplicable. Actually
I can explain it, he is trying to fool his reader into thinking there
is more to this discrepancy than is actually there.
> Mark Lane is showing that the Warren Commission was forced to contradict its own
> star witness.
Because the facts showed him in error on this point. Just like
Brennan was in error about the guys on the 5th floor.