On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> 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?
> While
> 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.
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ben Holmes
> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> 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.
The most important detail? That makes it a BFD.
>> "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?
It goes to the credibility of the witness. Like when the witness says that he could see the criminal clearly because it was a clear night with a full moon, then a clever defense attorney checks the Farmer's Almanac and finds that it was the new moon that night.
> 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?
Are you a defense attorney?
>> While
>> 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.
It helps to make it clear that it was just an optical illusion and not just Brennan lying about seeing a man in the window.
>> Brennan himself invalidated this explanation, for he swore that he saw the man
>> in the window both stand up and sit down.
>> 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.
>> --
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Ben Holmes
>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
On Sep 24, 10:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2012 4:08 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> The most important detail? That makes it a BFD.
It`s trivial.
> >> "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?
> It goes to the credibility of the witness.
How so? Is there any doubt he saw the shooter?
> Like when the witness says that
> he could see the criminal clearly because it was a clear night with a full
> moon, then a clever defense attorney checks the Farmer's Almanac and finds
> that it was the new moon that night.
> > 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?
> Are you a defense attorney?
Didn`t I say "honest manner"?
> >> While
> >> 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.
> It helps to make it clear that it was just an optical illusion and not
> just Brennan lying about seeing a man in the window.
Make the case. Please, it`s been 50 years, do something.
> >> Brennan himself invalidated this explanation, for he swore that he saw the man
> >> in the window both stand up and sit down.
> >> 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.
> >> --
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Ben Holmes
> >> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> On Sep 24, 10:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/24/2012 4:08 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>> 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.
>> The most important detail? That makes it a BFD.
> It`s trivial.
The identification of the shooter is trivial? Typical WC defender thinking.
>>>> "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?
>> It goes to the credibility of the witness.
> How so? Is there any doubt he saw the shooter?
Yes, there is. He may have seen somebody, but he could not identify the shooter as Oswald.
>> Like when the witness says that
>> he could see the criminal clearly because it was a clear night with a full
>> moon, then a clever defense attorney checks the Farmer's Almanac and finds
>> that it was the new moon that night.
>>> 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?
>> Are you a defense attorney?
> Didn`t I say "honest manner"?
>>>> While
>>>> 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.
>> It helps to make it clear that it was just an optical illusion and not
>> just Brennan lying about seeing a man in the window.
> Make the case. Please, it`s been 50 years, do something.
We already did. We won, you lost. Now get over it already.
>>>> 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?
>> One of the boxes?
> From Brennan`s vantage?
No one asked me about Brennan's vantage. Just what a person could sit on near the window. One of the boxes.
>>>> 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.
>>>> --
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Ben Holmes
>>>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> > On Sep 24, 10:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 9/24/2012 4:08 PM, Bud wrote:
> >>> On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >>>> 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.
> >> The most important detail? That makes it a BFD.
> > It`s trivial.
> The identification of the shooter is trivial?
Do you think that is the detail the WC thought Brennan was in error
about?
> Typical WC defender thinking.
Still can`t follow a discussion, can you Tony?
> >>>> "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?
> >> It goes to the credibility of the witness.
> > How so? Is there any doubt he saw the shooter?
> Yes, there is. He may have seen somebody,
Somebody shooting, Tony? Otherwise know as a shooter?
> but he could not identify the
> shooter as Oswald.
> >> Like when the witness says that
> >> he could see the criminal clearly because it was a clear night with a full
> >> moon, then a clever defense attorney checks the Farmer's Almanac and finds
> >> that it was the new moon that night.
> >>> 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?
> >> Are you a defense attorney?
> > Didn`t I say "honest manner"?
> >>>> While
> >>>> 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.
> >> It helps to make it clear that it was just an optical illusion and not
> >> just Brennan lying about seeing a man in the window.
> > Make the case. Please, it`s been 50 years, do something.
> We already did.
Without making a case?
> We won, you lost. Now get over it already.
> >>>> 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?
> >> One of the boxes?
> > From Brennan`s vantage?
> No one asked me about Brennan's vantage. Just what a person could sit on
> near the window. One of the boxes.
> >>>> 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.
> >>>> --
> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>> Ben Holmes
> >>>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
> On Sep 26, 12:19 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 9/25/2012 6:01 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sep 24, 10:56 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/2012 4:08 PM, Bud wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 24, 9:33 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> The most important detail? That makes it a BFD.
>>> It`s trivial.
>> The identification of the shooter is trivial?
> Do you think that is the detail the WC thought Brennan was in error
> about?
>> Typical WC defender thinking.
> Still can`t follow a discussion, can you Tony?
>>>>>> "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?
>>>> It goes to the credibility of the witness.
>>> How so? Is there any doubt he saw the shooter?
>> Yes, there is. He may have seen somebody,
> Somebody shooting, Tony? Otherwise know as a shooter?
I didn't say shooting.
I don't believe the three black men on the fifth floor were shooting.
>> but he could not identify the
>> shooter as Oswald.
> Yet he did.
>>>> Like when the witness says that
>>>> he could see the criminal clearly because it was a clear night with a full
>>>> moon, then a clever defense attorney checks the Farmer's Almanac and finds
>>>> that it was the new moon that night.
>>>>> 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?
>>>> Are you a defense attorney?
>>> Didn`t I say "honest manner"?
>>>>>> While
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> It helps to make it clear that it was just an optical illusion and not
>>>> just Brennan lying about seeing a man in the window.
>>> Make the case. Please, it`s been 50 years, do something.
>> We already did.
> Without making a case?
>> We won, you lost. Now get over it already.
>>>>>> 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?
>>>> One of the boxes?
>>> From Brennan`s vantage?
>> No one asked me about Brennan's vantage. Just what a person could sit on
>> near the window. One of the boxes.
> Do try to follow the discussions, Tony.
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Ben Holmes
>>>>>> Learn to Make Money with a Website -http://www.burningknife.com
