Cover-up in plain sight
charles wallace
the cover-up of it is being conducted in plain sight.
The two following posts will demonstrate that the evidence shows there
were two people who shot and killed JFK. The next post following this
one proves that the timing does not allow for just one shooter. The post
following that one will prove that the ammunition used by the MC rifle
was not enough to cause the wounds received by JFK and JBC.
Where is the physical evidence of the two shooters themselves? Well,
each was photographed and each was declared there by a witness. You
can't get much better than this. But this evidence is dismissed. How?
The Dillard photo of the sixth floor shooter is declared illusionary
even though shadows appear on the face from the window framing proving
that the face is real. The witness, Lillian Mooneyham who saw the person
in the window is declared mistaken even though her job as a court clerk
requires the utmost accuracy.
The photo showing the knoll shooter running away with the rifle in his
left hand is declared to be a man with an illusionary rifle even though
a shadow is cast on the rifle from the man's arm. The witness who claims
he had an encounter with a rifleman only a few feet away from where this
man is photographed is declared a liar or mentally ill. The photographed
rifleman picture was never shown to the witness, Gordon Arnold. The
witness pointed to the direction that the rifleman went after the
shooting had ended and after his encounter with him.
The Jim Towner no. 3 slide of the rifleman pictures him in a
location and at a time that matches the witness Gordon Arnold
statements.
Justice has been denied in the case of JFK's murder.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic,"
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
David VP
Even if we were to accept the West-End "blob"/"blur"/"something" as
being a living, breathing "person", that in itself does not prove
"conspiracy".
A "person" being on the West End of the 6th Floor does not PROVE this
"person" was "involved" in the assassination.
The CT-Kooks (like Robert J. Groden, plus many others kooks) also like
to put a "RIFLE" in this "person's" hands. But where's the proof of
that? Where?!
Plus -- If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do with this
weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
dismantling it at all)?
Also....This West-End Man had pretty much no choice but to use the same
rear staircase that Oswald descended (because, via Marrion Baker's
futile efforts to garner one of the elevators, we know that the
elevators were not used by anyone to descend to the first floor in the
minutes immediately after the shooting).
So, did this West-End guy just slip right past Baker & Truly on the
stairs without either seeing him? Or did Oswald conveniently tuck
West-End Guy into his pocket, thus hiding this second assassin from
view as LHO left the building?
Or did West-End man decide to just hang out on the 6th Floor for many
minutes after Oswald went downstairs (taking apart and eating his rifle
while he waited)?
Also -- Why didn't West-End Man (if he was actually a gunman on 11/22)
have a nice array of sniper-shielding boxes stacked around his west-end
window to help him hide from Bonnie Ray Williams and any other
6th-Floor passers-by?
Williams was up there until approx. 12:15 or 12:20....and he saw NOBODY
on the 6th Floor. We know where Oswald was probably hiding...in his
already-constructed Sniper's Nest in the SE corner. But where is
West-End Guy hiding during this period just minutes before being
photographed at 12:30 (per some kooks)?
Was he hiding in a Rolling Readers carton?
The bulk of the evidence tells any reasonable person that NO ONE was on
that 6th Floor except Lee Harvey Oswald at exactly 12:30 PM CST on
11/22/63.
But if the kooks want to place a man in the west-end window at
12:30....by all means, indulge yourself. Now all those same kooks have
to do is to prove HOW that person's presence on that 6th Floor
automatically equates to "A Conspiracy To Murder JFK".
Good luck. You shall need an abundance of it.
charles wallace
The basic story told is that Oswald fired three shots from his rifle.
One bullet went through JFK and JBC it is claimed. Another bullet hit
JFK in the head it is claimed. The third bullet shot was the very first
one fired and it missed the entire limousine it is claimed.
Some basic facts that you need to know. The entire shooting time span
and sequence was captured on film by Abraham Zapruder. Zapruder's camera
was tested to operate at an average rate of 18.3 frames per second.
Oswald's rifle was tested to take 2.3 seconds between shots which
allowed time to operate the bolt.
The John F. Kennedy homicide report prepared by the Dallas Police
Department states that witnesses said there was a shot and that the
President slumped forward. Then this was followed by two more shots.
Mrs. Lillian Mooneyham, a court clerk watching the motorcade from the
courthouse on Houston Street said in her FBI report that there was a
shot and the President slumped to his left. Then there was a pause
followed by two more shots which were close together. Secret Service
Agents surrounding the President said in their reports that there was a
shot and that the President slumped. Then there was a pause followed by
two more shots in quick succession. This is exactly the same shot
sequence reported by Ladybird Johnson in her Warren Commission
testimony. SS Agent Hickey said in his written report 11-22-63 that of
the last two shots there seemed to be "NO TIME ELEMENT BETWEEN THEM".
Now we can look at the Zapruder film and see that the President slumps
forward and to his left after being shot. His first clear reaction to
being shot is seen at Z225 which is just before he slumps. He is seen
later at Z313 being shot in the head. The time span calculation between
shots is Z313-Z225= 88 frames divided by 18.3 = 4.8 seconds. We know
that there could have been a shot fired between Z225 and Z313 because of
the 2.3 second minimum operation time between shots but equal spacing is
not the sequence reported by the majority of witnesses or SS Agent
Hickey. A shot fired 2.3 seconds after the head shot would have occurred
while SS Agent Clint Hill was climbing on the back of the limousine.
This was not reported by anyone. So there had to be a shot fired by
another rifle approximately at the same time as Oswald's rifle was
firing its last shot. Eyewitness Brennan said he was only aware of two
shots fired from the sixth floor window for sure.
It just so happens that Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, a forensic scientist who
has examined empty shell CE 543 which was found on the sixth floor along
with the other two empty shells CE 544 and CE 545, claims it was not
fired from Oswald's rifle at the time of the assassination.
There are many more facts like this that show that there were at least
two shooters. The entire shooting sequence in my opinion is more
complicated than the facts I have presented here suggest. My opinion of
the exact shooting sequence is explained at the website below.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1962
charles wallace
If you listen to those who say Oswald alone killed JFK, they claim two
of his three shots hit JFK and Gov. Connally. They claim one shot went
through JFK's upper torso and then went on to hit Gov. Connally. Gov.
Connally had 4 inches of a rib shattered and his wrist bone shattered.
Now I've never heard any LNTer or CTer who believes that one shot (SBT)
caused these wounds to both men BUT the bullet that did it was a partial
dud. I've also never heard a LNTer or CTer claim that the head shot
suffered by JFK was caused by a bullet that was a PARTIAL DUD. So they
think and claim that two full powered shots from Oswald's rifle caused
all the wounds suffered by JFK and Gov. Connally.
Well, the empty shell evidence CE543, CE544, and CE545 was examined by
forensic scientist Dr. E. Forrest Chapman. He concluded that CE543 was
not fired in Oswald's rifle because it had been hit twice by the firing
pin. NO SHOOTER would try and fire an empty shell during the
assassination of a U.S. President unless he didn't know that the shell
in the firing chamber was an empty. This is physical proof that Oswald
was not the shooter.
Dr. Chapman also found that of the two remaining shells that one of them
showed evidence of being a PARTIAL DUD. Since there evidently was only
one full powered shot fired from Oswald's rifle according to the
physical evidence available then the scenario of the shooting that
Oswald alone did the shooting is demonstrably FALSE.
Why has no one gone to the archives and proved Dr. Chapman wrong? Why is
there independent evidence unrelated to Dr. Chapman's finding that CE543
was not fired in Oswald's rifle? Why is there (unrelated to Dr. Chapman)
evidence of JFK's back wound being a non-penetrating body wound which
would indicate a partial dud?
If you are a NG passerby I encourage you to explore this case. The LNT
story that is told is not the truth of what happened. I agree with
Oprah. The truth is important.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate,
contrived and dishonest, but the myth.....persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic," John Fitzgerald Kennedy, 1962
charles wallace
The Groden "West-end Man" is NOT the face I refer to in the Dillard
photo. If that image is a person it is most likely TSBD employee Jack
Dougherty. The face I refer to was destroyed on the original Dillard
negative while in the custody of the U.S. government.
Regards, Charles
David VP
You mean to say you think there's MORE than one West-End Man on the 6th
Floor??
And since when is Jack Doughterty supposed to have been on the 6th
Floor at 12:30?
I assume, Charles, you were referring to this supposed "man" in the
Dillard photo (which, yes, was cropped by the WC). But CTers like to
invent their own reasons for this WC cropping. It MUST be
"conspiratorial", right? .....
charles wallace
Look in your book 'Case Closed' at the Dillard photo which Posner claims
was taken seconds after the last shot. Now think that it is Oswald that
you see standing in the SN closed window and you will be able to see the
face.
This entire closed window was completely destroyed in the original
negative. Now think that CTers did this, and then you will be able to
understand what was damaged.
David VP
CT-Kooky.
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The Dillard photo of the sixth floor shooter is declared illusionary even though shadows appear on the face from the window framing proving that the face is real." <<<
>
>
> Even if we were to accept the West-End "blob"/"blur"/"something" as
> being a living, breathing "person", that in itself does not prove
> "conspiracy".
>
> A "person" being on the West End of the 6th Floor does not PROVE this
> "person" was "involved" in the assassination.
>
> The CT-Kooks (like Robert J. Groden, plus many others kooks) also like
> to put a "RIFLE" in this "person's" hands. But where's the proof of
> that? Where?!
>
> Plus -- If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
David wrote:...If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do
with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
Egad!!... What head in the ass "logic".
First off ... Howard Brennan DESCRIBED both the window, and the man he
saw firing a rifle at the time of the murder. Neither of his
DESCRIPTIONS comform to the Warren Commission's contention. He
DESCRIBED a wide open window, and he DESCRIBED the gunman. The window
on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST
end was wide open as Brennan described. He described the gunman as
being dressed in light tan shirt and trouser, about 35 years old, and
weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald.
Secondly.......David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building,
completely ignoring the FACT that there were many people inside the
TSBD at the time of the shooting and immediately afterward. Baker and
Truely encountered a man on the fifth floor just minutes after the
shooting. ( The man was wearing a tan shirt )
Thirdly.... There was a rifle found on the sixth floor.... It was a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. David, without thinking, ASSUMES that
the rifle is Oswald's. ( it wasn't) But it's obvious that David,
with his blinders on, can't see any other possibility.
When a gullible LNer like David refuses to remove his head from his ass
there is no way they can see the light.
Walt
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The Dillard photo of the sixth floor shooter is declared illusionary even though shadows appear on the face from the window framing proving that the face is real." <<<
>
>
> Even if we were to accept the West-End "blob"/"blur"/"something" as
> being a living, breathing "person", that in itself does not prove
> "conspiracy".
>
> A "person" being on the West End of the 6th Floor does not PROVE this
> "person" was "involved" in the assassination.
>
> The CT-Kooks (like Robert J. Groden, plus many others kooks) also like
> to put a "RIFLE" in this "person's" hands. But where's the proof of
> that? Where?!
>
> Plus -- If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
David wrote:...If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do
with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
Egad!!... What head in the ass "logic".
First off ... Howard Brennan DESCRIBED both the window, and the man he
saw firing a rifle at the time of the murder. Neither of his
DESCRIPTIONS comform to the Warren Commission's contention. He
DESCRIBED a wide open window, and he DESCRIBED the gunman. The window
on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST
end was wide open as Brennan described. He described the gunman as
being dressed in light tan shirt and trouser, about 35 years old, and
weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald.
Secondly.......David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building,
completely ignoring the FACT that there were many people inside the
TSBD at the time of the shooting and immediately afterward. Baker and
Truely encountered a man on the fifth floor just minutes after the
shooting. ( The man was wearing a tan shirt )
Thirdly.... There was a rifle found on the sixth floor.... It was a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. David, without thinking, ASSUMES that
the rifle is Oswald's. ( it wasn't) But it's obvious that David,
with his blinders on, can't see any other possibility.
When a gullible LNer like David refuses to remove his head from his ass
there is no way they can see the light.
Walt
>
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The Dillard photo of the sixth floor shooter is declared illusionary even though shadows appear on the face from the window framing proving that the face is real." <<<
>
>
> Even if we were to accept the West-End "blob"/"blur"/"something" as
> being a living, breathing "person", that in itself does not prove
> "conspiracy".
>
> A "person" being on the West End of the 6th Floor does not PROVE this
> "person" was "involved" in the assassination.
>
> The CT-Kooks (like Robert J. Groden, plus many others kooks) also like
> to put a "RIFLE" in this "person's" hands. But where's the proof of
> that? Where?!
>
> Plus -- If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
David wrote:...If "West-End Man" did have a rifle.....what did he do
with this
> weapon? Was he able to dismantle HIS weapon and get out of the building
> with it, while Oswald (who we can only assume KNOWS that West-End Man
> is there) was forced to ditch his rifle on the 6th Floor (without
> dismantling it at all)?
Egad!!... What head in the ass "logic".
First off ... Howard Brennan DESCRIBED both the window, and the man he
saw firing a rifle at the time of the murder. Neither of his
DESCRIPTIONS comform to the Warren Commission's contention. He
DESCRIBED a wide open window, and he DESCRIBED the gunman. The window
on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST
end was wide open as Brennan described. He described the gunman as
being dressed in light tan shirt and trouser, about 35 years old, and
weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald.
Secondly.......David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building,
completely ignoring the FACT that there were many people inside the
TSBD at the time of the shooting and immediately afterward. Baker and
Truely encountered a man on the fifth floor just minutes after the
shooting. ( The man was wearing a tan shirt )
Thirdly.... There was a rifle found on the sixth floor.... It was a
model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. David, without thinking, ASSUMES that
the rifle is Oswald's. ( it wasn't) But it's obvious that David,
with his blinders on, can't see any other possibility.
When a gullible LNer like David refuses to remove his head from his ass
there is no way they can see the light.
Walt
>
charles wallace
A regular CT and LN News Group poster have both told me in private email
that they see the face and but think it is Oswald. One CTer claimed
there was nothing there but then enhanced the photo and then publicly
apologized. So its OK for you to see the face. You can claim its
Oswald and therefore not be kooky. You can claim the destruction of the
face on the original negative was an accident, the people who did the
destruction do so.
David VP
Boy, what a wonderfully-kooky CT-Kook's assessment of which window
Brennan actually was describing.
So.....you think that Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was deliberately
lying) when he specifically circled the window on the EAST side of the
6th Floor for the WC...right?
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce481.jpg
And he GOT IT WRONG when he also stated that the "Negroes" who were on
the 5th Floor were DIRECTLY BELOW the window where Brennan saw the
assassin. Is this correct, kook? Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was a
bald-faced liar)?
And I guess Brennan also somehow just GUESSED CORRECTLY when he
positively identified (within minutes of seeing them on the 5th Floor)
two of the "Negroes" he had seen directly below the killer's window. He
pointed out Norman and Williams to police, in front of the Depository,
as positively the two men he saw below the assassin's window, which
PROVES that a person situated where Brennan was situated (on the wall
across from the TSBD) could definitely POSITIVELY IDENTIFY a human
being on the upper floors of the Depository from that vantage point.
Brennan's testimony was also very consistent regarding the "Was He
Standing Or Sitting?" line of questioning -- because Brennan (due to
the level of those TSBD windows) also thought Williams and Norman were
"standing" on the 5th Floor....and we know they were kneeling.
Brennan also positively stated he saw the assassin at the "east" end of
the building (via his 11/22 affidavit):
"...In the east end of the building and the second row of windows from
the top I saw a man in this window." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
>>> "He {Brennan} described the gunman as being dressed in {a} light tan shirt and trouser{s}, about 35 years old, and weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald." <<<
And (clearly) you like to skew the evidence toward your "CT" liking as
much as humanly possible.
Where did Brennan ever say the killer was "about 35 years old"?
Brennan said this on the day of the assassination:
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender
and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored
clothing but definately [sic] not a suit." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
affidavit
And via his WC testimony:
Mr. BRENNAN -- "To my best description, a man in his early thirties,
fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10."
~~~~~
Mr. BELIN -- "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the
man with the rifle was wearing?"
Mr. BRENNAN -- "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in
khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other
words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
~~~~~
"Khaki" can mean a variety of color variations, btw. Brownish,
greenish, yellowish.
I'm also wondering if Brennan might have been color-blind (a
decent-sized pct. of men are; I am one of them). Yes, this is just a
guess, and I admit that. But it's just a thought, which could explain
why there's this variation in Oswald's clothing description from
Brennan.
Brennan's overall testimony, however, perfectly aligns with Lee Harvey
Oswald's guilt. Only a rabid CT-nutcase would think otherwise.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>>> "David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building..." <<<
Yeah....it's just my silly-willy surmise that the murderer of the
President probably wouldn't have had much of a desire to stick around
playing dominoes in the Depository's Domino Room for an hour or so,
thereby ensuring the building would be sealed off, making escape
impossible.
But, then again, what do I know?
Perhaps Presidential assassins come in two different classifications:
1.) The "Let's Hurry-Up & Get Out Of Dodge To Keep From Being Caught"
type.
and...
2.) The CT-Kook's type of killer -- i.e., The "Let's Hang Around The
Scene Of The Crime For As Long As Possible Just Because We Can" type.
>>> "There was a rifle found on the sixth floor. It was a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano. David, without thinking, ASSUMES that the rifle is Oswald's." <<<
You actually think a "Carcano" was found on the 6th Floor?? What kind
of CT-Kook are you anyway?? Better re-think this mindset, or you'll
find yourself tossed out of the Kook Club pretty darn quick!
>>> "When a gullible LNer like David refuses to remove his head from his ass there is no way they can see the light." <<<
Astounding CT hypocrisy here.
Everybody should re-read Walt-Kook's post that he wrote re. Brennan.
And then read over Brennan's own testimony and affidavits (which are
words that are being twisted and turned every which way but loose by
Mr. Walt-Kook).
Too funny for words indeed.
This CT-Kook has totally misrepresented Howard Brennan's very-detailed
testimony and, in the usual CT-Kook fashion, turned Brennan's words
into "conspiracy"-favoring ones.
It's the normal kook tactic -- i.e., pretend the witness said something
else (or something that a CT-Kook thinks he {the kook} can turn into
something "hinky" or "shady").
Care to take the Tippit-murder evidence for a walk in your crackpot
CT-Kook park? That should make a nice fantasy version of the true
facts. (The kook version usually does anyway.)
Anthony Marsh
I certainly hope not. I pointed out to Bob Groden a long time ago the
absurdity of it really being a man's face in the window. Given the known
dimension of the window, such a face would be much too large for a
normal person's face.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "The Dillard photo of the sixth floor shooter is declared illusionary even though shadows appear on the face from the window framing proving that the face is real." <<<
>
>
> Even if we were to accept the West-End "blob"/"blur"/"something" as
> being a living, breathing "person", that in itself does not prove
> "conspiracy".
>
True, but anyway too big to be a real person's face.
David VP
East End?
Upon further reflection, I think Groden sees a "face" in Oswald's
window. Right?
I'm dizzy -- so many invisible killers, I can't keep them all straight.
Walt
David VP wrote:....."I'm dizzy".
Ah finally, At last, a breath of truth from David!
Walt
charles wallace
In Mooneyham's job it would become apparent that the 'truth' is the glue
that holds our justice system together. Show me a justice system where
truth is not a goal and I will show you a dictatorship.
Mooneyham told the FBI what she saw and heard over a month after the
assassination when everyone was told who did it, how many shots were
fired and from what window.
You and others discount her account even though her shot spacing is
backed up by Secret Service accounts written the very day of the
assassination. You and others discount her seeing a man standing in the
sniper window set after the shots even though the ear witnesses on the
floor below heard no one walking or running away after the shots. And
there is the Dillard photograph which shows this man whose image was
destroyed on the original Dillard negative.
Those that aid in the cover-up of JFK's murder are actively working to
destroy our system of justice. Perhaps the goal they seek is a
dictatorship.
charles wallace
No reply?
Re: Cover-up in plain sight
Group: alt.conspiracy.jfk Date: Wed, Jul 19, 2006, 11:43am From:
ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace)
charles wallace
Yes, you are correct the dent in the lip of empty shell CE543 is not a
rechambering mark. I believe the author of this magazine article has
misinterpreted what Chapman or someone else has told him.
It is my understanding that if you try to extract too quickly an empty
shell from the firing chamber in order to chamber another round, the
empty shell gets dented on the lip. The name of the actual metal part
of the rifle that contacts and causes the dented lip is not specified by
anyone that I know of. Now perhaps the intent of the author to describe
the denting process was the same but a poor set of words was chosen.
The dented lip has only one meaning. The shooter was trying to extract
it too quickly. The double hit by the firing pin is the physical proof
that CE543 was not fired during the assassination of JFK. In my opinion
this is physical proof that Oswald was not the shooter. The additional
physical proof that CE543 was not fired during the assassination was
discovered by Dr. Josiah Thompson and is described in his book "Six
Seconds In Dallas". It shows a firing chamber mark on shells CE544 and
CE545 that is unique to Oswald's rifle. CE543 does not have this mark.
The reference I made to Dr. E. Forrest Chapman being a forensic
scientist I think came from something written by Dr. John McAdams. If
I'm wrong I'm wrong. But regardless, the double firing pin hit on CE543
is still there and the FBI duplication shell remains. The photograph in
SSID showing no firing chamber mark on CE543 but marks on CE544 and
CE545 remain regardless of the fact that Dr. Thompson is not a forensic
scientist.
Do you wish to dispute the fact that the FBI made a test shell that has
a dented lip and an extra firing pin hit? Since this shell was fired in
Oswald's rifle do you wish to dispute the fact that this FBI shell as a
firing chamber mark? Do you wish to dispute the fact that CE543 does
not have this mark? Do you wish to contend that somewhere on this earth
that there exists an empty shell that was fired in Oswald's rifle that
does not have a firing chamber mark just like CE543?
Walt
> >>> "The window on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST end was wide open as Brennan described." <<<
>
>
> Boy, what a wonderfully-kooky CT-Kook's assessment of which window
> Brennan actually was describing.
>
> So.....you think that Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was deliberately
> lying) when he specifically circled the window on the EAST side of the
> 6th Floor for the WC...right?
No Brennan didn't get it wrong......You'll need to pull yer head out,
and then have someone read his WC testimony to you.
Brennan circled the window where he saw a man with a rifle BEFORE the
motorcade arrived.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce481.jpg
>
> And he GOT IT WRONG when he also stated that the "Negroes" who were on
> the 5th Floor were DIRECTLY BELOW the window where Brennan saw the
> assassin. Is this correct, kook? Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was a
> bald-faced liar)?
Williams,Norman, and Jarmin were there BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
>
> And I guess Brennan also somehow just GUESSED CORRECTLY when he
> positively identified (within minutes of seeing them on the 5th Floor)
> two of the "Negroes" he had seen directly below the killer's window. He
> pointed out Norman and Williams to police, in front of the Depository,
> as positively the two men he saw below the assassin's window, which
> PROVES that a person situated where Brennan was situated (on the wall
> across from the TSBD) could definitely POSITIVELY IDENTIFY a human
> being on the upper floors of the Depository from that vantage point.
>
> Brennan's testimony was also very consistent regarding the "Was He
> Standing Or Sitting?" line of questioning -- because Brennan (due to
> the level of those TSBD windows) also thought Williams and Norman were
> "standing" on the 5th Floor....and we know they were kneeling.
>
> Brennan also positively stated he saw the assassin at the "east" end of
> the building (via his 11/22 affidavit):
>
> "...In the east end of the building and the second row of windows from
> the top I saw a man in this window." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
He saw a 35 year old man, who weighed about 175pounds, who was dressed
in a light tan khaki shirt and trousers that were a shade LIGHTER than
the shirt....... BEFORE the motorcade arrived
>
>
> >>> "He {Brennan} described the gunman as being dressed in {a} light tan shirt and trouser{s}, about 35 years old, and weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald." <<<
>
>
> And (clearly) you like to skew the evidence toward your "CT" liking as
> much as humanly possible.
>
> Where did Brennan ever say the killer was "about 35 years old"?
>
> Brennan said this on the day of the assassination:
>
> "He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender
> and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored
> clothing but definately [sic] not a suit." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
> affidavit
>
Very good..... Does Brennan's DESCRIPTION of the gunman fit Lee
Oswald????
Lee had just turned 24 years old, He weighed 140 pounds, and he was
wearing DARK COLORED clothing....(reddish brown shirt, and dark gray
trousers)
> And via his WC testimony:
>
> Mr. BRENNAN -- "To my best description, a man in his early thirties,
> fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10."
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Mr. BELIN -- "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the
> man with the rifle was wearing?"
>
> Mr. BRENNAN -- "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in
> khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other
> words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
Brennan is DESCRIBING a LIGHT COLORED shirt .....He said it was on the
DINGY side of WHITE....WHITE!!!
WHITE is THE LIGHTEST color of the spectrum....... Red, Brown, and
Gray are on the DARK side of the spectrum.
>
> ~~~~~
>
> "Khaki" can mean a variety of color variations, btw. Brownish,
> greenish, yellowish.
>
> I'm also wondering if Brennan might have been color-blind (a
> decent-sized pct. of men are; I am one of them). Yes, this is just a
> guess, and I admit that. But it's just a thought, which could explain
> why there's this variation in Oswald's clothing description from
> Brennan.
Color blind people can still destinguish the difference between LIGHT
colors ( Dingy white) and DARK colors ( Reddish Brown, and Dark gray)
>
> Brennan's overall testimony, however, perfectly aligns with Lee Harvey
> Oswald's guilt. Only a rabid CT-nutcase would think otherwise.
Only a gullible jerk with his head up his ass couldn't see that the
Warren Commission was leading Howard Brennan in his
questioning......and yet he managed to state the FACTS.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>
>
> >>> "David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building..." <<<
>
>
> Yeah....it's just my silly-willy surmise that the murderer of the
> President probably wouldn't have had much of a desire to stick around
> playing dominoes in the Depository's Domino Room for an hour or so,
> thereby ensuring the building would be sealed off, making escape
> impossible.
The killer would not need to run if he knew that the police were going
to blame the murder on Lee Oswald.
Can you say C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y? There WAS a plot to kill JFK... and
the shooter certainly would have known that he did not need to run
away.....Just act like a Jack Dougherty and pretend your an innocent
TSBD Employee.
>
> But, then again, what do I know?
GOOD QUESTION!!!
Walt
Walt
> >>> "The window on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST end was wide open as Brennan described." <<<
>
>
> Boy, what a wonderfully-kooky CT-Kook's assessment of which window
> Brennan actually was describing.
>
> So.....you think that Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was deliberately
> lying) when he specifically circled the window on the EAST side of the
> 6th Floor for the WC...right?
No Brennan didn't get it wrong......You'll need to pull yer head out,
and then have someone read his WC testimony to you.
Brennan circled the window where he saw a man with a rifle BEFORE the
motorcade arrived.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce481.jpg
>
> And he GOT IT WRONG when he also stated that the "Negroes" who were on
> the 5th Floor were DIRECTLY BELOW the window where Brennan saw the
> assassin. Is this correct, kook? Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was a
> bald-faced liar)?
Williams,Norman, and Jarmin were there BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
>
> And I guess Brennan also somehow just GUESSED CORRECTLY when he
> positively identified (within minutes of seeing them on the 5th Floor)
> two of the "Negroes" he had seen directly below the killer's window. He
> pointed out Norman and Williams to police, in front of the Depository,
> as positively the two men he saw below the assassin's window, which
> PROVES that a person situated where Brennan was situated (on the wall
> across from the TSBD) could definitely POSITIVELY IDENTIFY a human
> being on the upper floors of the Depository from that vantage point.
>
> Brennan's testimony was also very consistent regarding the "Was He
> Standing Or Sitting?" line of questioning -- because Brennan (due to
> the level of those TSBD windows) also thought Williams and Norman were
> "standing" on the 5th Floor....and we know they were kneeling.
>
> Brennan also positively stated he saw the assassin at the "east" end of
> the building (via his 11/22 affidavit):
>
> "...In the east end of the building and the second row of windows from
> the top I saw a man in this window." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
He saw a 35 year old man, who weighed about 175pounds, who was dressed
in a light tan khaki shirt and trousers that were a shade LIGHTER than
the shirt....... BEFORE the motorcade arrived
>
>
> >>> "He {Brennan} described the gunman as being dressed in {a} light tan shirt and trouser{s}, about 35 years old, and weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was NOT DESCRIBING Oswald." <<<
>
>
> And (clearly) you like to skew the evidence toward your "CT" liking as
> much as humanly possible.
>
> Where did Brennan ever say the killer was "about 35 years old"?
>
> Brennan said this on the day of the assassination:
>
> "He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender
> and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored
> clothing but definately [sic] not a suit." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
> affidavit
>
Very good..... Does Brennan's DESCRIPTION of the gunman fit Lee
Oswald????
Lee had just turned 24 years old, He weighed 140 pounds, and he was
wearing DARK COLORED clothing....(reddish brown shirt, and dark gray
trousers)
> And via his WC testimony:
>
> Mr. BRENNAN -- "To my best description, a man in his early thirties,
> fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10."
>
> ~~~~~
>
> Mr. BELIN -- "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the
> man with the rifle was wearing?"
>
> Mr. BRENNAN -- "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in
> khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other
> words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
Brennan is DESCRIBING a LIGHT COLORED shirt .....He said it was on the
DINGY side of WHITE....WHITE!!!
WHITE is THE LIGHTEST color of the spectrum....... Red, Brown, and
Gray are on the DARK side of the spectrum.
>
> ~~~~~
>
> "Khaki" can mean a variety of color variations, btw. Brownish,
> greenish, yellowish.
>
> I'm also wondering if Brennan might have been color-blind (a
> decent-sized pct. of men are; I am one of them). Yes, this is just a
> guess, and I admit that. But it's just a thought, which could explain
> why there's this variation in Oswald's clothing description from
> Brennan.
Color blind people can still destinguish the difference between LIGHT
colors ( Dingy white) and DARK colors ( Reddish Brown, and Dark gray)
>
> Brennan's overall testimony, however, perfectly aligns with Lee Harvey
> Oswald's guilt. Only a rabid CT-nutcase would think otherwise.
Only a gullible jerk with his head up his ass couldn't see that the
Warren Commission was leading Howard Brennan in his
questioning......and yet he managed to state the FACTS.
>
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>
>
> >>> "David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building..." <<<
>
>
> Yeah....it's just my silly-willy surmise that the murderer of the
> President probably wouldn't have had much of a desire to stick around
> playing dominoes in the Depository's Domino Room for an hour or so,
> thereby ensuring the building would be sealed off, making escape
> impossible.
The killer would not need to run if he knew that the police were going
to blame the murder on Lee Oswald.
Can you say C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y? There WAS a plot to kill JFK... and
the shooter certainly would have known that he did not need to run
away.....Just act like a Jack Dougherty and pretend your an innocent
TSBD Employee.
>
> But, then again, what do I know?
GOOD QUESTION!!!
Walt
David VP
Brennan never once said he saw a "35-year-old" man.
He said "about 30" or "early 30s".
Plus: IMO, I've always thought LHO looked older than 24.
But, then again, what do I know (when compared to the CT-Kooks)??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the Kennedy assassination case had gone to trial, and if (in a
perfect world) Vincent T. Bugliosi had had the opportunity to prosecute
that murdering bastard named Lee Oswald, Vincent would certainly have
used Howard Brennan as a key witness to advertise Oswald's obvious
guilt to the jury. And Vince would have had minimal difficulty making a
good case for Brennan's being right when he fingered Oswald as the
sixth-floor assassin.
Plus: Vince would have also been able to use Brennan's IDing both
Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman within minutes of also seeing
Oswald just one floor above those two gentlemen -- a very key point,
IMO.
And Vince (in such a Let's-Pretend case) would also have hammered home
to the jury the circumstances of why Howard Brennan did not identify
Oswald right away on 11/22.
Taking a page from my main dude, Vincent Bugliosi's, prosecutorial
playbook.......
[Vince Bugliosi imitation on]....
"These defense attorneys over here have often asked WHY it is that
Howard L. Brennan failed to ID Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22nd as
the assassin in the 6th-Floor window.
Well, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he answered that question --
multiple times -- right from this witness stand! It was because he
feared for his life, ladies and gentlemen! That's why!
And who among the 12 men and women seated on this jury today could
honestly say that you, yourself, wouldn't have reacted the exact same
way as Mr. Brennan with respect to witnessing the murder of the
President. And fearing you might be the ONLY witness who was able to
say with a good deal of certainty that this man sitting at that defense
table, Lee Harvey Oswald, was the killer of our nation's President, you
clam up...but not out of indecisiveness...but, instead, out of fear and
concern for your loved ones.
Because, ladies and gentlemen, if it HAD been out of indecisiveness on
Mr. Brennan's part as to whether he could or could not have identified
the defendant as the President's assassin -- then WHY did Mr. Brennan
swear before Almighty God during his Warren Commission testimony that
he COULD positively identify this defendant as the President's
assassin?!
WHY would Mr. Brennan put himself through that ordeal, ladies and
gentlemen, IF IT WERE NOT THE TRUTH?!
In other words, why didn't Howard Brennan just simply take the EASY WAY
OUT, ladies and gentlemen?! He COULD have done so...very easily. He
could have just kept his mouth shut and refused to positively identify
the defendant as the person he saw firing a rifle from that sixth-floor
window.
And by taking that "easy way out", Mr. Brennan would have spared
himself a lot of worry and mental pain. He could have just said -- 'You
know what, Mr. Warren, I honestly cannot say that the man I saw was Lee
Harvey Oswald in that window'.
But he did NOT do that, ladies and gentlemen! And the reason he did not
do that is because he's an honest man, with integrity. And he KNEW he
had to come forward with this ultra-important information regarding the
murderer of President Kennedy -- even though he KNEW he would probably
be hounded by the critics for the rest of his life!
He still felt it important enough to come forward and tell the truth
about who he saw point that gun at the President on November the
twenty-second, 1963. And he felt it was important enough to swear out a
second official affidavit on May the 7th of 1964, wherein he repeated
his reasons for why he had not initially positively identified the
defendant as the President's assassin.
Did he HAVE to do those things, ladies and gentlemen?! The answer to
that question is an unequivocal 'No'! He didn't have a gun to his own
head, being FORCED to positively identify Lee Oswald as JFK's slayer.
And this defense team is 100% wrong, ladies and gentlemen, when they
attempt to spoon-feed you the ridiculously-absurd lie that Mr. Brennan
WAS somehow being FORCED to twist his story into a convenient "Oswald's
Guilty" tale of deception.
And this unscrupulous defense team sitting at that counsel table across
this courtroom is also 100% wrong when they also assert the alternative
notion that Mr. Brennan deliberately lied when he told the Warren
Commission on March 24th, 1964, that he HAD, in fact, been able to
identify Lee Oswald as the man in the Sniper's window! And the reason
he had not done so right away was due to the fact that feared for his
very life...and for the lives of his wife and children.
And this defense team has absolutely NO proof to back up the despicable
allegation that Mr. Brennan would have done such a vile, rotten thing
as to intentionally give known-to-be-false information regarding the
investigation into the murder of the President of the United States!
These defense attorneys should be ASHAMED of themselves for even
suggesting such a thing to you folks here in open court! Because there
is not a shred of verifiable proof to back up the idea that Mr. Brennan
is anything but what he appeared to be on that witness stand, ladies
and gentlemen -- and that is an honest citizen of these United States,
who came forth with THE TRUTH concerning the man he saw shoot the
President .... even when he didn't have to come forth and tell that
truth.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
[/VB off]
David VP
Some kooky shit here.
Everybody ought to read the above pro-CT nonsense at least three times
to absorb the full level of kookiness that resides within it.
Well, at least ONE more time anyhow.....
>>> "The killer would not need to run if he knew that the police were going to blame the murder on Lee Oswald." <<<
This would, of course, assume that (somehow) EVERY policeman near DP on
11/22 had been "in" on the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot.
Because if just ONE cop wasn't "in" on this massive plot, and that one
cop happened across a killer with a smoking gun behind the
Knoll....what do the CT-Kooks think would have happened next??
The kooks will probably answer -- 'That cop's days are numbered;
probably numbering in single digits.'
Right??
Walt
Wrong!!.....but your answer reveals your limited reasoning ability.
They were many cops and FBI agents who were NOT conspirators.....But
the KEY people could control the "investigation". Cops who were not
privvy to the plot brought in evidence and suspects.....but the
evidence quickly was thrown away ( because it didn't implicate Oswald)
There was a Dr Pepper soda bottle, an empty Viceroy cigarette package,
and numerous cigarette butts found in the so called "sniper's nest".
They were taken to police Headquarters where the were rapidly discarded
because the finger prints on the items were NOT Oswald's.
The ignorant cops arrested several suspects (Some of whom were probably
conspirators and killers)....but once at police headquarters, they were
quickly released.....
Walt
Walt
Wrong!!.....but your answer reveals your limited reasoning ability.
David VP
And you can tell the world precisely which ones wore the "CT" badges
I'll bet. Right? You seem to know everything else...why not a CT Cop
Roster too? I await that list so I can double-check its accuracy. Get
crackin'.
>>> "But the KEY people could control the "investigation"." <<<
And I want that detailed list of all those "key" people too. You seem
to know everything else. That list needs to be on my desk by 07/29/2006
at noon (EDT). Get crackin'.
>>> "Cops who were not privvy to the plot brought in evidence and suspects..." <<<
I want those cops' names on your third list. My desk by 07/30/2006. End
of day please.
(And there's just one "V" in privy.) :)
>>> "There was a Dr Pepper soda bottle, an empty Viceroy cigarette package, and numerous cigarette butts found in the so called "sniper's nest"." <<<
List 4 from you will require detailed, verified data re. all of this
stuff you're alleging.
For one thing, the soda bottle was not found IN the SN. That, of
course, was Bonnie Ray's bottle. Or are you saying there was a 2nd Dr.
Pepper bottle...in the SN itself? I'll need that detailed via List #4
too, remember. Same deadline as #3 please. Thanks.
>>> "They were taken to police Headquarters where the were rapidly discarded because the finger prints on the items were NOT Oswald's." <<<
Great case for conspiracy there. The cops tossed out a cigarette
package and some butts (which will be verified via one of your detailed
lists, remember, for confirmation).
Wow! That's cause to start screaming "plot" indeed, huh?
>>> "The ignorant cops arrested several suspects (Some of whom were probably
conspirators and killers)....but once at police headquarters, they were
quickly released." <<<
It couldn't possibly be that these suspects (like Mr. House to name
one) were released due to something called "Lack Of Evidence" -- could
it?
And, btw, you're shooting yourself in your CT foot (at least enough to
cause a nasty scar if not the loss of said foot) by admitting that
"several suspects" were picked up....which would, of course, indicate
that the DPD DIDN'T necessarily consider LHO the ONLY suspect from the
get-go.
Walt
He began "feeling the fear" when he saw Oswald under arrest on TV and
realized that Oswald was NOT the man he had seen aiming a rifle out of
the sixth floor window, but the cops were saying that Oswald was the
culprit.
He had told the cops immediately after the shooting, that he was
certain that he would be able to identify the 35 year old, 175 pound
man, dressed in light colored clothing, if he ever saw him again.
The fear increased when the cops took him to police headquarters and
"warned" him that they couldn't keep his identity secret ( because he
had been photographed talking to the cops at the scene) and he and his
family could be in great danger from "others" involved in the
assassination.
He tried to tell the cops after viewing Oswald in a line up that Oswald
was NOT the killer but they wouldn't listen to him. They pushed him to
put the finger on Oswald, but he protested that Oswald "DIDN'T LOOK
LIKE THE MAN" he had seen with a rifle in the sixth floor window ...He
said.. "For one thing "HE HAS ON DIFFERENT CLOTHES"
Brennan knew that the man he had seen had been wearing a light tan or
"dingy white" colored shirt, and trousers that were a shade lighter
than the shirt.
The Cops countered that Oswald had gone to his room and changed his
clothes
The Cops searched Lee's room thay afternoon and found no LIGHT colored
shirt and trousers..... They found the brick red shirt and the gray
trousers that Oswald had worn at work that morning.
He knew Oswald was not the man but realized that the real killers were
connected to people in very high and powerful places .......He was
smart enough to know he and his family were in serious jeopardy.
Walt
>
> And who among the 12 men and women seated on this jury today could
> honestly say that you, yourself, wouldn't have reacted the exact same
> way as Mr. Brennan with respect to witnessing the murder of the
> President. And fearing you might be the ONLY witness who was able to
> say with a good deal of certainty that this man sitting at that defense
> table, Lee Harvey Oswald, was the killer of our nation's President, you
> clam up...but not out of indecisiveness...but, instead, out of fear and
> concern for your loved ones.
>
> Because, ladies and gentlemen, if it HAD been out of indecisiveness on
> Mr. Brennan's part as to whether he could or could not have identified
> the defendant as the President's assassin -- then WHY did Mr. Brennan
> swear before Almighty God during his Warren Commission testimony that
> he COULD positively identify this defendant as the President's
> assassin?!
>
> WHY would Mr. Brennan put himself through that ordeal, ladies and
> gentlemen, IF IT WERE NOT THE TRUTH?!
Cold gut wrenching FEAR!!!
David VP
Walt ought to consider writing a book entitled "Completely
Unsupportable Theories Re. The JFK Assassination (Volume 1 of 4)". And
when book-store customers ask for this piece of crap, the clerk can
respond with.....
http://www127.pair.com/critical/joke-08.jpg
>>> "He {Howard Brennan} had told the cops immediately after the shooting, that he was certain that he would be able to identify the 35 year old, 175 pound man, dressed in light colored clothing, if he ever saw him again." <<<
Please provide the verified data confirming Mr. Brennan EVER ONCE said
the assassin was "35 years old".
My desk. By Friday. 4 PM EDT.
David VP
Tell me -- Did the DPD use this same "warned of danger" process on all
of the Tippit witnesses too? Is that why THOSE witnesses, too,
identified Oswald as a murderer on 11/22?
Or did the cops just get LUCKY when their lone "Patsy" in the Kennedy
case just happened to ACTUALLY kill a person on the very same day as
the President's death?
David VP
during his Warren Commission testimony that he COULD positively
identify this defendant as the President's assassin?!" WHY would Mr.
Brennan put himself through that ordeal, ladies and gentlemen, IF IT
WERE NOT THE TRUTH?!"
WALT: "Cold gut wrenching FEAR!!!"
~~~~~~
That's odd. I thought that was the very reason Brennan gave for NOT
positively identifying Lee Harvey in the first place.
So, it appears that poor Howard couldn't win for losing. He's scared
shitless if he DOES identify Oswald....but he's ALSO scared stiff (by
way of
"cold gut-wrenching FEAR" via the authorities) if he DOESN'T identify
him, too.
I guess Howard had to live in constant fear either way he flipped the
coin, huh?
~~~~~~
"After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as
pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody,
there was no longer that immediate danger." -- Howard L. Brennan; To WC
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> DVP (Via VB Mode): "Then WHY did Mr. Brennan swear before Almighty God
> during his Warren Commission testimony that he COULD positively
> identify this defendant as the President's assassin?!" WHY would Mr.
> Brennan put himself through that ordeal, ladies and gentlemen, IF IT
> WERE NOT THE TRUTH?!"
>
> WALT: "Cold gut wrenching FEAR!!!"
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> That's odd. I thought that was the very reason Brennan gave for NOT
> positively identifying Lee Harvey in the first place.
>
> So, it appears that poor Howard couldn't win for losing. He's scared
> shitless if he DOES identify Oswald....but he's ALSO scared stiff (by
> way of
> "cold gut-wrenching FEAR" via the authorities) if he DOESN'T identify
> him, too.
>
> I guess Howard had to live in constant fear either way he flipped the
> coin, huh?
>
Now you're getting it, he COULDN'T win for losing.... he, Howard IS
involved! No way out.
ps: I'll break the news, you're no VB, roflmfao!
David VP
EL-OH-EL!
A batch of kooks say that Brennan was strong-armed by the evil bad guys
in charge of the Patsy Plot, and I'm supposed to accept it as fact???
Do you think I've sunk THAT low into your CT cesspool? If so, why?
Tell me -- Was the evil DPD/FBI prepared to use their strong-arm
tactics on EVERY potential witness who saw the assassin shooting from
the TSBD, even if the number was in the hundreds?
Quite a task. They'd have to call in the Back-Up Patsy-Framing Team to
handle that strong-arm overload. Lucky for them that Brennan was the
solo witness who could say for sure it was Saint O.
BTW -- Can you, or any CT-Kook, tell me what HARM it would have done to
your Grand JFK Conspiracy if Brennan had ultimately refused to
positively identify Oswald?
WHY would Brennan's non-identification (i.e., if Howard had chosen to
simply stick with his initial "I Can't Say For Sure" version), in any
fashion, serve to bring down the house of CT cards for these slick
Patsy Plotters?
Several other witnesses saw the man on the sixth floor, but failed to
positively I.D. the man -- e.g., Fischer, Edwards, Euins, Rowland. Why
would adding one more "I Couldn't Tell" witness to the mix be
catastrophic for The Patsy Team?
The plotters still have Oswald's gun in the right place at the right
time...plus the SN shells...plus those limo fragments...plus those
convenient LHO prints all over the SN...plus CE399...plus the Tippit
witnesses and the LHO shells on 10th Street.
With all of that physical stuff, how in hell could they lose?! So why
bother with witness coercion? It's completely unnecessary...even from a
CT POV.
Plus -- The "P" Team would STILL have Brennan's initial 11/22 affidavit
too! Which is, as luck would have it, an affidavit that provides a
pretty decent general description of the one man the plotters are
trying to pin this whole thing on. (By doggies.)
There's absolutely NO NEED at all to attempt to strong-arm Brennan into
making a positive identification. It's completely superfluous.
But most kooks want the whole pie. They're not satisfied with just
several slices.
>>> "I'll break the news, you're no VB..." <<<
But you sure resemble somebody named Bob (Groden). You sound like him
anyway.
And, btw, shouldn't you be running around looking for mystery Knoll
killers and searching for additional ways to set Saint Oswald free?
That's a CT-Kook's primary purpose in this world, is it not?
So get busy and say something else worthy of loons so that more people
can start admiring you and Ollie Stone and all those other kooks who
have no more desire to look at the hard, physical evidence in the
Kennedy case than to stare at the noonday sun (to borrow a phrase from
Vincent Bugliosi Esq., who shall be putting the final nails into all
CTs fairly soon).
Chop-chop.
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>> "He {Brennan} saw a 35 year old man..." <<<
>
>
>Brennan never once said he saw a "35-year-old" man.
>
>He said "about 30" or "early 30s".
>
>Plus: IMO, I've always thought LHO looked older than 24.
>
>But, then again, what do I know (when compared to the CT-Kooks)??
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>If the Kennedy assassination case had gone to trial, and if (in a
>perfect world) Vincent T. Bugliosi had had the opportunity to prosecute
>that murdering bastard named Lee Oswald, Vincent would certainly have
>used Howard Brennan as a key witness to advertise Oswald's obvious
>guilt to the jury. And Vince would have had minimal difficulty making a
>good case for Brennan's being right when he fingered Oswald as the
>sixth-floor assassin.
>
>Plus: Vince would have also been able to use Brennan's IDing both
>Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Norman within minutes of also seeing
>Oswald just one floor above those two gentlemen -- a very key point,
>IMO.
>
problems here.... Brennan seemed very confused when questioned in the company of
Norman, jarman & Williams as to which two he was supposed to have seen on the
5th floor, then out front. But it was Norman & Jarman, not Williams, whom he
supposedly saw upstairs, then met downstairs. Among the problems here, tho:
1) During questioning, Williams was presented with what sounds like a direct
quote from Brennan, the gist of which was that he, Brennan, had seen *Williams*
on the 5th floor, but Williams denied that Brennan had pointed him out.
2) Brennan testified that he presented Norman & Jarman, on the front steps, to
SS Agent Forrest Sorrels, but Sorrels denied meeting the two there, & that
certainly seems likely, since he took neither man with him to make out
affidavits on Friday. The two (N&J, that is) virtually disappeared during the
noon hour--Jarman made a statement the next day, but left out any mention of the
5th floor! Norman did not make a statement until Sunday or Monday.
3) So altho Norman, Jarman & Brennan say they met on the steps, it seems
improbable, since police were all around Brennan, & yet they were not detained,
apparently....
dw
aeffects
How many times did his story change?
> But most kooks want the whole pie. They're not satisfied with just
> several slices.
heh? Have you read the WCR? How many slices did the CTer's GET?
>
> >>> "I'll break the news, you're no VB..." <<<
>
>
> But you sure resemble somebody named Bob (Groden). You sound like him
> anyway.
yep, I was present at the 2003 UMinn Zapruder Film Symposium, actually
I videotape DLifton there -- amazing, David never recognized me....
> And, btw, shouldn't you be running around looking for mystery Knoll
> killers and searching for additional ways to set Saint Oswald free?
God Von Pein, really sorry I have to tell you this but, LHO was
murdered a few days after his arrest.
> That's a CT-Kook's primary purpose in this world, is it not?
> So get busy and say something else worthy of loons so that more people
> can start admiring you and Ollie Stone and all those other kooks who
> have no more desire to look at the hard, physical evidence in the
> Kennedy case than to stare at the noonday sun (to borrow a phrase from
> Vincent Bugliosi Esq., who shall be putting the final nails into all
> CTs fairly soon).
roflmfao! -- dream on
tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-
tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-tap-
> Chop-chop.
Walt
I won't waste my time looking up info for a person with his head in his
ass...... I believe the last sentence of his affidavit says that
Brennan felt he could identify the gunman if he ever saw him again.
Look it up. He is also on record ( in writing) as saying the gunman
was 30 to 35 years old..... But you don't really care about the FACTS,
you simply want to nitpick to save your egotistical ass from the
embarrassment of believing America's biggest fairy tale, ....entitled..
The Warren Report.
Walt
I won't waste my time looking up info for a person with his head in his
Walt
David Von Peon's quote of Howard Brennan......
"After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as
> pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody,
> there was no longer that immediate danger." -- Howard L. Brennan; To WC
David, Perhaps you can find a friend, or someone who can comprehend
what Howard Brennan said in your quote, and have them explain it to
you.
Oh hell... I'll do it for you...... An egotistical asshole might have
difficulty in finding a friend.
Howard says that Oswald's death relieved him of great stress and angst.
He knew Lee was not the man whom he had seen with a rifle, but he also
knew that the cops were framing Oswald. Once Oswald was dead, he was
relieved of his duty as a compassionate human being, to defend someone
he knew was innocent.
With Lee in the grave there was no longer any need to defend him. After
Oswald's death Brennan thought that he could just "go along with the
program" and try to resume a normal life.
Walt
Walt
D. Von Peon wrote:
> For one thing, the soda bottle was not found IN the SN. That, of
> course, was Bonnie Ray's bottle. Or are you saying there was a 2nd Dr.
> Pepper bottle...in the SN itself?
There are photos of Detectives L.D. Montgomery and ?? leaving the TSBD
with the Dr.Pepper bottle, and the Viceroy package. They are carrying
the evidence in a manner that would not contaminate the evidence.
Later that afternoon, when the building was opened to reporters they
took photos that show a Dr Pepper bottle. So we can be sure there were
at least TWO Dr. Pepper bottles involved. The soda bottle, the
cigarette package, and the cig butts, that were removed from the so
called "Sniper's nest" could NOT have been left there by
Oswald....because Oswald did not smoke.
The cops ignored this FACT and destroyed the evidence ( a felony ) and
pressed ahead with the framing of Lee Oswald.
Walt
Walt
D. Von Peon wrote:
> For one thing, the soda bottle was not found IN the SN. That, of
> course, was Bonnie Ray's bottle. Or are you saying there was a 2nd Dr.
> Pepper bottle...in the SN itself?
There are photos of Detectives L.D. Montgomery and ?? leaving the TSBD
Walt
D. Von Peon wrote:
> For one thing, the soda bottle was not found IN the SN. That, of
> course, was Bonnie Ray's bottle. Or are you saying there was a 2nd Dr.
> Pepper bottle...in the SN itself?
There are photos of Detectives L.D. Montgomery and ?? leaving the TSBD
David VP
Lucky you. Why would you want a kook like that to recognize you? (Oh
yeah, I forgot -- it's because you're just like him...in the Kooks
Club. Sorry. I forgot that for a moment.)
>>> "God Von Pein..."
I'm glad you finally came to this realization, Mr. Effects.
:)
David VP
Nice of Brennan to provide a pretty fair description of the "patsy" in
his affidavit on 11/22, though, wasn't it?
I guess both Brennan and the Patsy-Framers just got LUCKY (yet again)
when the description Brennan provided in his INITIAL NOVEMBER 22
AFFIDAVIT just happened to be a description which did NOT EXCLUDE THE
PATSY.
Sure, I realize Brennan's affidavit description isn't spot-on perfect
for Oswald -- but it's very doubtful that ANYBODY'S description under
those circumstances would be absolutely 100% perfect.
Howard Brennan was giving GENERALITIES concerning the man he saw in the
SN window. Brennan didn't have a tape measure or a weighing scale handy
at the time (with which to verify every last detail).
Brennan, on November 22nd, described a "white man" (which Oswald was)
.... "slender" (which Oswald was) .... "early 30s" (Oswald looked older
than 24, IMO, and possibly in Brennan's opinion too) .... 5'10" in
height (Oswald was 5'9").
Brennan's "weight" figure was too high, true...but at the SAME time he
described the man as "slender", which Oswald's certainly was. Go
figure.
Pretty fortunate for all concerned, huh? It was certainly fortunate for
Brennan (if he was really a liar later on, as most CTers seem to
think). And it was certainly fortunate for those ever-lucky
Patsy-Framers, in that Brennan didn't happen to describe a "black man;
age 50; 6'2"; 210 lbs.; with a beard".
The luck never runs out for those conspirators it seems. They must have
had a patent on it.
>>> "With Lee in the grave there was no longer any need to defend him. After Oswald's death Brennan thought that he could just "go along with the program" and try to resume a normal life." <<<
Sounds pretty good alright.
Now....all you have to do is go about the task of PROVING that that is
what Howard Brennan meant when he talked to the Warren Commission in
1964.
Good luck.
David VP
He "smoked" soda bottles, did he??
Re. the cigarette thing -- It sure was stupid of those "real killers"
to leave cigarette remnants in the SN when they knew (or should have
known, what with their keeping constant tabs on their patsy in the
months leading up to the murder) that Oswald did not smoke.
Silly mistake indeed, huh?
In the final analysis, however, cigarette butts and a Viceroy package
in the SN in no way lets Oswald off the hook...and if you think it
does, you're -- let's see -- KOOKY (that's it)!
Did anybody search the rest of the 6th Floor, to see if there were
discarded cigarette remnants in other parts of the 6th Floor?
That "warehouse" floor of the TSBD was described as dusty and dirty
(hence, not exactly bound to make Good Housekeeping magazine as a prime
example of tidiness). Cigarette butts were probably all over the place,
and not JUST in the SN.
And, yes, I realize that the 6th Floor was being "re-floored" on 11/22
(hence, something "newer" and "cleaner" and possibly not littered with
cigarette butts). But that still wouldn't mean that there couldn't have
been cigarette remnants discarded in other areas of that floor.
And, once again I'll reiterate -- WHAT KIND OF BOOBS WERE THESE
PATSY-FRAMERS OF YOURS, if, in fact, "they" were the ones who left
behind stuff like a soda bottle (with potential fingerprints on it of
the real killer) and cigarette tracings when they should have KNOWN
their patsy was a non-smoker??
>>> "The cops ignored this FACT and destroyed the evidence and pressed ahead with the framing of Lee Oswald." <<<
Sounds nice and pat from a Kook's POV.
Now....all you have to do is go about the task of PROVING beyond a
reasonable doubt that the DPD was "framing" Lee Oswald.
Good luck.
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The soda bottle, the cigarette package, and the cig butts, that were removed from the so called "Sniper's nest" could NOT have been left there by Oswald....because Oswald did not smoke." <<<
>
> He "smoked" soda bottles, did he??
>
> Re. the cigarette thing -- It sure was stupid of those "real killers"
> to leave cigarette remnants in the SN when they knew (or should have
> known, what with their keeping constant tabs on their patsy in the
> months leading up to the murder) that Oswald did not smoke.
>
> Silly mistake indeed, huh?
>
> In the final analysis, however, cigarette butts and a Viceroy package
> in the SN in no way lets Oswald off the hook...and if you think it
> does, you're -- let's see -- KOOKY (that's it)!
dufus -- who said it exonerates Oswald? If Oswald didn't smoke, and
butts where found in the vicinity of the alledged sniper nest, that
*might* mean ANOTHER shooter, how do YOU, spell C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y.
Oswald and another, two others - no Oswald. What happened with the Dr.
Pepper bottle and cigarette butts?
David VP
So? Are you therefore saying that Jarman was NOT on the 5th Floor with
Norman and Williams (who both said Jarman was there with them)?
>>> "Williams was presented with what sounds like a direct quote from Brennan, the gist of which was that he, Brennan, had seen *Williams* on the 5th floor, but Williams denied that Brennan had pointed him out." <<<
The "Let's Blame Anybody Except Oswald" club and the CT-Kook's
"Hairsplitter's" club are meeting at the same time now, it would seem
(via the above idiocy).
Fact is -- Brennan POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED two people who were just one
floor below Oswald in the TSBD.
Jarman, Williams, and Norman were all in the windows on the 5th
Floor....with Jarman just one window to the west of the others.
Even if Brennan had only IDed ONE of the black men he had seen, it
would be enough to PROVE that a person COULD positively identify
another human being located on the upper Depository floors from
Brennan's vantage point across Elm Street.
Any more hairs you kooks care to split? And after splitting those, you
can then split the split hairs.
Walt
Dave Von Peon wrote:...........I guess both Brennan and the
Patsy-Framers just got LUCKY (yet again) when the description Brennan
provided in his INITIAL NOVEMBER 22 AFFIDAVIT just happened to be a
description which did NOT EXCLUDE THE PATSY.
Perhaps you should check your facts...... You are NOT quoting from
Howard Brennan's INITIAL affidavit.......
Walt
David VP
David VP
Well, quite naturally (due to the nature of CT-Kooks), I kinda thought
YOU thought the butts must in some way get Saint Oswald off the
murdering hook.
After all, a truly good kook (worth his kook salt) wouldn't THINK of
having a guy named "Oswald" involved in actually shooting anyone with a
gun on November 22nd.
Would they??
tomnln
proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where
I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm an
This is the part you so Conveniently Ommitted.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154108680.3...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "He {Howard Brennan} knew Lee was not the man whom he had seen with a rifle...." <<<
>
>
> Nice of Brennan to provide a pretty fair description of the "patsy" in
> his affidavit on 11/22, though, wasn't it?
>
> I guess both Brennan and the Patsy-Framers just got LUCKY (yet again)
> when the description Brennan provided in his INITIAL NOVEMBER 22
> AFFIDAVIT just happened to be a description which did NOT EXCLUDE THE
> PATSY.
>
> Sure, I realize Brennan's affidavit description isn't spot-on perfect
> for Oswald -- but it's very doubtful that ANYBODY'S description under
> those circumstances would be absolutely 100% perfect.
>
> Howard Brennan was giving GENERALITIES concerning the man he saw in the
> SN window. Brennan didn't have a tape measure or a weighing scale handy
> at the time (with which to verify every last detail).
>
> Brennan, on November 22nd, described a "white man" (which Oswald was)
> .... "slender" (which Oswald was) .... "early 30s" (Oswald looked older
> than 24, IMO, and possibly in Brennan's opinion too) .... 5'10" in
> height (Oswald was 5'9").
Way ta go Von Peon!!...... Thank you. You are helping us "Kooks"
tremendously. You think you're being clever by "fudging" the facts
and OMMITTING the FACTS that you can't "fudge". Like the FACT that Mr.
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunmans clothes as...."a light colored shirt",
possibly a "dingy WHITE", and trousers that were a "shade lighter than
the shirt". Everyone agrees that Oswald had on a BRICK RED SHIRT and
dark gray trousers that morning, so all you wiggling a squirming only
serves to expose as a liar and a fool. BEWARE! Lurkers are
watching......and if you hope to convince them that you've got the
truth then you must not lie. Lying only hurts your cause.
Walt
David VP
Yep...let's let Oswald walk because of this clothing snafu.
We'll just disregard all of those OTHER "Oswald Connections" -- such as
the physical description given by Brennan in his 11/22 affidavit, which
generally matches the OWNER OF THE SAME RIFLE FOUND ON THAT VERY SAME
SIXTH FLOOR 52 MINUTES AFTER BRENNAN SAW THE ASSASSIN IN THE WINDOW.
And then we'll also just ignore all of those Oswald prints deep inside
the bowels of that Sniper's Nest. And we'll ignore those C2766 bullet
shells being found right there where this same person was shooting (a
person whose PHYSICAL features generally match the owner of the weapon
from where those bullet shells originated).
Let's ignore all that other stuff that points undeniably to Oswald and
go, instead, with the clothes...how 'bout it? OK, great.
Of course, the exact color of Oswald's clothes (jacket) over on Tenth
Street were said to be slightly different from witness to witness, too.
I guess that means "Saint O." can get away with that murder too...huh?
(Makes as much sense as letting him off the hook based on just the
clothing thing in the JFK murder.)
lazu...@webtv.net
"You didn't see a damn thing if you didn't see Oswald up in that window
with a rifle!"
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154121229.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The soda bottle, the cigarette package, and the cig butts, that were removed from the so called "Sniper's nest" could NOT have been left there by Oswald....because Oswald did not smoke." <<<
>
> He "smoked" soda bottles, did he??
>
> Re. the cigarette thing -- It sure was stupid of those "real killers"
> to leave cigarette remnants in the SN when they knew (or should have
> known, what with their keeping constant tabs on their patsy in the
> months leading up to the murder) that Oswald did not smoke.
>
partly open. Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the window that he saw the
gunman firing from as being WIDE OPEN. That WIDE OPEN window was on
the WEST end of the sixth floor. Furthermore Howard Brennan dived off
the wall on which he was sitting and took cover on the EAST side of
that wall to shield himself from the gunman..... If the gunman had been
it the so called"sniper's nest" Brennan's actions would not have
shielded from the gunman. The Dr.pepper bottle and the empty cigarette
package and the cig butts were left in the SMOKERS NOOK by a TSBD
employee who used it as a hideout by an open window ( to let the tale
tale smoke escape) to smoke and goof off. Incidentally the employee who
stacked the boxes to form a "gold brick" room also left a hammer lying
on the window sill.....So we can safely assume that he was one of the
floor repair crew.
Which TSBD employee returned to the sixth floor a few minutes after
noon to "Retrieve his cigarettes from his jacket pocket".... Hint:
This employee had a criminal record.
> Silly mistake indeed, huh?
>
> In the final analysis, however, cigarette butts and a Viceroy package
> in the SN in no way lets Oswald off the hook...and if you think it
> does, you're -- let's see -- KOOKY (that's it)!
>
> Did anybody search the rest of the 6th Floor, to see if there were
> discarded cigarette remnants in other parts of the 6th Floor?
>
> That "warehouse" floor of the TSBD was described as dusty and dirty
> (hence, not exactly bound to make Good Housekeeping magazine as a prime
> example of tidiness). Cigarette butts were probably all over the place,
> and not JUST in the SN.
Thank you for exposing your ignorance once again.....If you didn't have
your head up your ass you'd KNOW that there were NO SMOKING ( per the
Fire Marshall) signs posted throughout that old fire trap of a
building. Any employee caught smoking in a NO SMOKING area was subject
to dismissal.
>
> And, yes, I realize that the 6th Floor was being "re-floored" on 11/22
> (hence, something "newer" and "cleaner" and possibly not littered with
> cigarette butts). But that still wouldn't mean that there couldn't have
> been cigarette remnants discarded in other areas of that floor.
Speculation...... And not well researched at that.
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "The soda bottle, the cigarette package, and the cig butts, that were removed from the so called "Sniper's nest" could NOT have been left there by Oswald....because Oswald did not smoke." <<<
>
> He "smoked" soda bottles, did he??
>
> Re. the cigarette thing -- It sure was stupid of those "real killers"
> to leave cigarette remnants in the SN when they knew (or should have
> known, what with their keeping constant tabs on their patsy in the
> months leading up to the murder) that Oswald did not smoke.
>
partly open. Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the window that he saw the
gunman firing from as being WIDE OPEN. That WIDE OPEN window was on
the WEST end of the sixth floor. Furthermore Howard Brennan dived off
the wall on which he was sitting and took cover on the EAST side of
that wall to shield himself from the gunman..... If the gunman had been
it the so called"sniper's nest" Brennan's actions would not have
shielded from the gunman. The Dr.pepper bottle and the empty cigarette
package and the cig butts were left in the SMOKERS NOOK by a TSBD
employee who used it as a hideout by an open window ( to let the tale
tale smoke escape) to smoke and goof off. Incidentally the employee who
stacked the boxes to form a "gold brick" room also left a hammer lying
on the window sill.....So we can safely assume that he was one of the
floor repair crew.
Which TSBD employee returned to the sixth floor a few minutes after
noon to "Retrieve his cigarettes from his jacket pocket".... Hint:
This employee had a criminal record.
> Silly mistake indeed, huh?
>
> In the final analysis, however, cigarette butts and a Viceroy package
> in the SN in no way lets Oswald off the hook...and if you think it
> does, you're -- let's see -- KOOKY (that's it)!
>
> Did anybody search the rest of the 6th Floor, to see if there were
> discarded cigarette remnants in other parts of the 6th Floor?
>
> That "warehouse" floor of the TSBD was described as dusty and dirty
> (hence, not exactly bound to make Good Housekeeping magazine as a prime
> example of tidiness). Cigarette butts were probably all over the place,
> and not JUST in the SN.
Thank you for exposing your ignorance once again.....If you didn't have
your head up your ass you'd KNOW that there were NO SMOKING ( per the
Fire Marshall) signs posted throughout that old fire trap of a
building. Any employee caught smoking in a NO SMOKING area was subject
to dismissal.
>
> And, yes, I realize that the 6th Floor was being "re-floored" on 11/22
> (hence, something "newer" and "cleaner" and possibly not littered with
> cigarette butts). But that still wouldn't mean that there couldn't have
> been cigarette remnants discarded in other areas of that floor.
Speculation...... And not well researched at that.
>
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>>"Mr. Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's clothes as...."a light colored shirt"..."
>>>><<<
>
>
>Yep...let's let Oswald walk because of this clothing snafu.
>
>We'll just disregard all of those OTHER "Oswald Connections" -- such as
>the physical description given by Brennan in his 11/22 affidavit, which
>generally matches the OWNER OF THE SAME RIFLE FOUND ON THAT VERY SAME
>SIXTH FLOOR 52 MINUTES AFTER BRENNAN SAW THE ASSASSIN IN THE WINDOW.
>
>And then we'll also just ignore all of those Oswald prints deep inside
>the bowels of that Sniper's Nest. And we'll ignore those C2766 bullet
>shells being found right there where this same person was shooting
You mean those hulls that 3 witnesses said Capn Fritz picked up & pocketed?
Gee, I wonder if (a) he put down the same hulls later, & (b) if he put them down
inthe same place he found them....
dw
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>>"Jarman made a statement the next day, but left out any mention of the 5th
>>>>floor!" <<<
>
>
>So? Are you therefore saying that Jarman was NOT on the 5th Floor with
>Norman and Williams (who both said Jarman was there with them)?
>
>
>>>>"Williams was presented with what sounds like a direct quote from Brennan, the
>>>>gist of which was that he, Brennan, had seen *Williams* on the 5th floor, but
>>>>Williams denied that Brennan had pointed him out." <<<
>
>
>The "Let's Blame Anybody Except Oswald" club and the CT-Kook's
>"Hairsplitter's" club are meeting at the same time now, it would seem
>(via the above idiocy).
>
>Fact is -- Brennan POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED two people who were just one
>floor below Oswald in the TSBD.
You can say that only if you ignore what was said in the first hour after the
shooting, before, that is, even the first affidavits were affidavited....
Witness Amos Euins, for instance, was saying that "It was a colored man" with a
rifle, to one reporter, James Underwood (v6p170). A second reporter heard Euins
tell a "policeman", "It was a colored man done it, I saw him." (Kent Biffle,
DMN, reprinted 11/21/2000))
Where did Euins see this colored man with the rifle? At 1pm, Underwood reported
that "one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he saw a man fire
from about the fourth window of the TSBD" (Pictures of the Pain p421) What did
Euins/Underwood mean by "fourth window"? Check Dep Sheriff L Lewis' list of
witnesses who came to the Sheriff's right after the shooting:
Amos Euins "Saw man on 5th floor". That checks: the 5th floor of the TSBD is
the "fourth window" up from the ground (see POTP p500).
Now, was there a "colored man" on the 5th floor of the TSBD around 12:30? Yes,
look, there's Bonnie Ray Williams, in the Powell pic (POTP p449). No sign of
Harold Norman or James Jarman there.
You've got a witness, two reporters, & photographic evidence, & they tally....
Now, where did Brennan see *his* shooter? "I don't recall this window at the
time of the shooting being that low," Brennan says of a picture of the TSBD's
upper windows, specifically referring to the "sniper's nest" window. Where was
his window, then? "I believe that at the time he was firing, it was open just
like this," he adds. Belin: "Just like the windows on the *FIFTH* floor
immediately below?" Brennan: "That is right". (v3p153) And the only windows
on the 5th & 6th floor on the east open "just like" those windows were the east
corner windows on the... fifth floor. Now, who did Brennan see in that
5th-floor window?
McCloy: When you came downstairs, do you remember seeing a man named Brennan, &
did a man named Brennan ID you downstairs?
Williams: No, sir, I don't remember that.
McC: No one that you know, no one said, "This is the man I have seen on the
fifth floor window"?
W: No, sir. (v3p183)
This was only one of several statements which Williams had to retract at the
hearings, that he had to say that the FBI was wrong, everybody was wrong. But
there were only 3 possibilities, at the most, which Brennan had, to situate
someone on the 5th floor, & W was one of them. Apparently, when Williams & Arce
were escorted out the front, circa 1pm, Brennan ID'd him. He might have been
wrong, but both he & Euins say the man with the rifle was on the *FIFTH* floor.
And Underwood, Biffle, Euins & Brennan were saying *fifth floor* around 1pm,
before affidavit time. Yes, the minds of EUins & Brennan seemed to have been
changed after that; yet, at the hearings, Brennan reverted to the 5th-floor
identification, in a way that can't be fudged: the 5th-floor corner windows
*were* wide open; the 6th floor "nest" window was not....
dw
David VP
partly open. Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the window that he saw the
gunman firing from as being WIDE OPEN. That WIDE OPEN window was on
the WEST end of the sixth floor. Furthermore Howard Brennan dived off
the wall on which he was sitting and took cover on the EAST side of
that wall to shield himself from the gunman..... If the gunman had been
it the so called"sniper's nest" Brennan's actions would not have
shielded from the gunman. The Dr.pepper bottle and the empty cigarette
package and the cig butts were left in the SMOKERS NOOK by a TSBD
employee who used it as a hideout by an open window ( to let the tale
tale smoke escape) to smoke and goof off. Incidentally the employee who
stacked the boxes to form a "gold brick" room also left a hammer lying
on the window sill.....So we can safely assume that he was one of the
floor repair crew.
Which TSBD employee returned to the sixth floor a few minutes after
noon to "Retrieve his cigarettes from his jacket pocket".... Hint:
This employee had a criminal record." <<<
You were right Bud, and I was wrong.......VB's book WON'T be as
convincing to some kooks as I once had thought. This idiotic post by
Walt has proved that fact to me now.
Walt
Don, there is a photo of B.R. Williams and Danny Arce in custidy in the
back seat of a police car. There were there because they were
"suspects" or at least persons of interest. Brennan had identified
Williams as one of the black men he had seen in the fifth floor window,
so the cops held him for questioning. I've always suspected that
Danny Arce was one of the conspirators.
Walt
Walt
Don, there is a photo of B.R. Williams and Danny Arce in custidy in the
back seat of a police car. There were there because they were
"suspects" or at least persons of interest. Brennan had identified
Williams as one of the black men he had seen in the fifth floor window,
so the cops held him for questioning. I've always suspected that
Danny Arce was one of the conspirators.
Walt
> >Jarman, Williams, and Norman were all in the windows on the 5th
Walt
Von Peon wrote:.....
"You were right Bud, and I was wrong.......VB's book WON'T be as
> convincing to some kooks as I once had thought. This idiotic post by
> Walt has proved that fact to me now."
Why don't you attempt to present a counter argument Davey?.....
Surely you haven't run out of lies.... C'mon everybody is waiting to
hear how you'll lie and evade the FACTS.
Walt
David VP
You mean a counter-argument to the random, unsupportable kook shit that
you've been spouting? How can a rational person argue with a kook like
yourself and expect to make any headway? (Hence, my post just a few
minutes ago re. VB's book.)
Your made-up junk is more important to you than what really happened
(per the official evidence that you, somehow, think was ALL tainted in
some way).
You'll never run out of kook shit. Those kooks who came before you have
seen to that.
>>> "Surely you haven't run out of lies." <<<
It's pretty clear YOU haven't run out of them, that's for darn sure.
Keep it up and you might just make the "Top Kooks" list on this NG.
Sounds like you are going for the Gold via your last several insane
"This Shit Never Happened But I'll Say It Did Anyway" type of postings.
>>> "Everybody is waiting to hear how you'll lie and evade the FACTS." <<<
Oh, you mean the "fact" that Brennan supposedly saw the "real" killer
in the WEST end TSBD window, instead of the window he circled for the
WC?
Brennan said this to the WC......
Mr. BELIN -- Here is a marking pencil. Will you just mark the window
that you believe you saw the man. And do you want to put a letter "A",
if you would, by that. All right, now you have marked on Commission
Exhibit 477 a circle with the letter "A" to show the window that you
saw a man in, I believe you said, at least two times come back and
forth.
Mr. BRENNAN -- Yes
Mr. BELIN -- Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN -- Not on that floor.
~~~~~~
This is CE477:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce477.jpg
~~~~~~
All lies from Brennan's lips, right?
Walt
Von Peon wrote:......
> Brennan said this to the WC......
>
> Mr. BELIN -- Here is a marking pencil. Will you just mark the window
> that you believe you saw the man. And do you want to put a letter "A",
> if you would, by that. All right, now you have marked on Commission
> Exhibit 477 a circle with the letter "A" to show the window that you
> saw a man in, I believe you said, at least two times come back and
> forth.
> Mr. BRENNAN -- Yes
DUH!!..... Thanks to your stupidy, you once again make it very easy to
torpedo your THEORY and blow it out of the water.
You'll notice that Belin didn't specify WHEN Brennan saw the man. He
didn't ask at what point in Brennan's observations of the man did
Brennan see the man behind the "SN" window...was it when Brennan first
arrived on the scene at about 12:20 or was it during the shooting.
Belin didn't say.... All right, now you have marked on Commission
Exhibit 477 a circle with the letter "A" to show the window that you
saw a man FIRING A RIFLE from. AND he goes on to say that.... Brennan
had said that he had seen the man walking back and forth and he had
returned to the so called sniper's nest window at least two times.
Where was the man walking to and from?? Brennan DESCRIPTION of the
window from which the man fired the rifle DESCRIBES a WIDE OPEN window.
It's obvious that the man could not have "stood and steadied the rifle
against the left side" of the partly open "SN" window so Brennan was
DESCRIBING the window on the WEST end of the sixth floor. AND Brennan
dived for cover on the EAST side of a wall to shield himself from the
gunman he saw firing from the wide open window to the WEST of his
position.If the gunman had been in the so called "Sniper's Nest",
Brennan's diving for cover on the EAST side of the wall would not have
sheilded him from the gunman.
Brennan marked that window to clarify where he had seen the gunman
BEFORE the shooting....NOT during the shooting.
Walt
David VP
Is it any wonder you kooks can't "solve" the case to your goofball
satisfaction? You create ambiguity when there isn't a scrap of
ambiguity to be detected at all. Incredible.
Your entire argument re. Brennan is totally wiped out by this WC
exchange (that you apparently ignored entirely):
Mr. BELIN -- Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?
Mr. BRENNAN -- Not on that floor.
"That floor", of course, meaning "The Sixth Floor".
>>> "Where was the man {in the SN} walking to and from?" <<<
To the 7-11 to pick up some Viceroys and a six-pack of Dr. Pepper
maybe???
BTW -- If Brennan was being told what to say by the "authorities"...why
didn't they merely "instruct" him to say that the SN window on the SE
side of the building was only open part-way? A pretty silly mistake on
the part of the people assigned to put every word in this liar's
(Brennan's) mouth....wasn't it?
So, given that, was Brennan a complete WC shill/liar....or was he a
truth-teller? Or both? (Just be wishy-washy...I won't care.)
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "He {David Belin} didn't ask at what point in Brennan's observations did Brennan see the man behind the "SN" window..." <<<
>
>
> Is it any wonder you kooks can't "solve" the case to your goofball
> satisfaction? You create ambiguity when there isn't a scrap of
> ambiguity to be detected at all. Incredible.
Incredible indeed!!... I solved the case to my satisfaction years ago.
That's not to say that I know who actually pulled the triggers, but I
know who was behind the killing.
And I know that Lee Oswald was framed by the men who killed JFK.
>
> Your entire argument re. Brennan is totally wiped out by this WC
> exchange (that you apparently ignored entirely):
>
> Mr. BELIN -- Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
> can recollect?
> Mr. BRENNAN -- Not on that floor.
>
> "That floor", of course, meaning "The Sixth Floor".
>
Duh.....I'll type this real slow so you can comprehend.... I agree
that Brennan did see a gunman who was NOT Oswald, on the sixth floor
behind the "S.N." window. He saw the gunman moving back and forth
between the east and west ends of the sixth floor. He saw him behind
the S.E. corner window a couple of times BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
And he saw the gunman dressed in "DINGY WHITE " shirt and trousers,
STANDING and BRACING the rifle against the left side of a wide open
window as he fired the rifle toward the triple underpass AT THE TIME of
the shooting. He could see all of the gunman's upper body from the hips
up to the top of his head as he fired the rifle.
Brennan could not have seen a gunman, Standing and bracing the rifle
against the left side of the S.E. corner window
Because it was impossible for an average size man to stand behind that
window a brace himself against the side. ....But maybe you believe that
Lee Oswald had the magical power to transform himself into a midget.
Walt
>
> >>> "Where was the man {in the SN} walking to and from?" <<<
>
> To the 7-11 to pick up some Viceroys and a six-pack of Dr. Pepper
> maybe???
>
> BTW -- If Brennan was being told what to say by the "authorities"...why
> didn't they merely "instruct" him to say that the SN window on the SE
> side of the building was only open part-way? A pretty silly mistake on
> the part of the people assigned to put every word in this liar's
> (Brennan's) mouth....wasn't it?
Don't be so damned stupid..... The authorties weren't instructing
Brennan about what to say..They were simply leading the questioning and
twisting his words.
Walt
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>> "Now, where did Brennan see *his* shooter? "I don't recall this
>window at the time of the shooting being that low," Brennan says of a
>picture of the TSBD's upper windows, specifically referring to the
>"sniper's nest" window. " <<<
>
>
>It merely proves Brennan was capable of making an error. As we all are.
Don't be too hasty, son. Reporter Malcolm Couch saw a rifle at a window in the
TSBD. Asked by Belin how wide that window was open, Couch replied, "My
impression was that it was all the way open." (v6p157) Witness Bob Edwards
stated in his 11/22 statement, "I saw a man at the window on the FIFTH FLOOR,
the window was WIDE OPEN ALL THE WAY." (v24p21) When Belin asked fellow witness
R. Fischer how wide the window was open, the latter testified, "The window was
open almost all the way open if not all the way open... or I wouldn't have been
able to see past the top of his head had it not been, & his shoulders" (v6p199)
So you have agreement among 3 witnesses & a reporter. And actually I think
Fischer is the most convincing, because he states that the window had to have
been "all the way open" for him to have seen as much of the suspect as he did.
Brennan did *not* make an error. There was a suspicious man with a rifle on the
*fifth* floor....
dw
>But to dismiss all of his testimony because of the window level is just
>silly. Brennan circled the window where he saw the sniper....and
>regardless of Brennan's belief re. how far the window was open...we KNOW
>that window was not open all the way (via the Dillard photo).
>
Thank you (& Brennan & Fischer et al) for making my point re the fifth floor....
>You surely don't wish to purport that Brennan got one END of the building
>mixed up with the complete OPPOSITE end...do you?
>Get real.
>
>Such a theory about Brennan mixing up the windows is also proven wrong by
>the fact that Brennan specifically stated he saw the Negro men in the
>window DIRECTLY BELOW THE WINDOW WHERE HE SAW THE MAN WITH THE RIFLE.
Donald Willis
Walt -- I do too. For one thing, he has no one to corroborate his whereabouts
at the time of the shooting. And he was with Williams before & after the
shooting, but supposedly not *during*, & the two came to the Elm St branch of
the TSBD together.
dw
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>>"The window on the east end was only partially open while the window on the WEST
>>>>end was wide open as Brennan described." <<<
>
>
>Boy, what a wonderfully-kooky CT-Kook's assessment of which window
>Brennan actually was describing.
>
>So.....you think that Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was deliberately
>lying) when he specifically circled the window on the EAST side of the
>6th Floor for the WC...right?
>
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce481.jpg
>
>And he GOT IT WRONG when he also stated that the "Negroes" who were on
>the 5th Floor were DIRECTLY BELOW the window where Brennan saw the
>assassin. Is this correct, kook? Brennan just GOT IT WRONG (or was a
>bald-faced liar)?
>
>And I guess Brennan also somehow just GUESSED CORRECTLY when he
>positively identified (within minutes of seeing them on the 5th Floor)
>two of the "Negroes" he had seen directly below the killer's window. He
>pointed out Norman and Williams to police
If only *DVP* could get the names right!
dw
, in front of the Depository,
>as positively the two men he saw below the assassin's window, which
>PROVES that a person situated where Brennan was situated (on the wall
>across from the TSBD) could definitely POSITIVELY IDENTIFY a human
>being on the upper floors of the Depository from that vantage point.
>
>Brennan's testimony was also very consistent regarding the "Was He
>Standing Or Sitting?" line of questioning -- because Brennan (due to
>the level of those TSBD windows) also thought Williams and Norman were
>"standing" on the 5th Floor....and we know they were kneeling.
>
>Brennan also positively stated he saw the assassin at the "east" end of
>the building (via his 11/22 affidavit):
>
>"...In the east end of the building and the second row of windows from
>the top I saw a man in this window." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
>
>
>>>>"He {Brennan} described the gunman as being dressed in {a} light tan shirt and
>>>>trouser{s}, about 35 years old, and weighing about 175 pounds. Clearly he was
>>>>NOT DESCRIBING Oswald." <<<
>
>
>And (clearly) you like to skew the evidence toward your "CT" liking as
>much as humanly possible.
>
>Where did Brennan ever say the killer was "about 35 years old"?
>
>Brennan said this on the day of the assassination:
>
>"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender
>and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored
>clothing but definately [sic] not a suit." -- H. Brennan; 11/22/63
>affidavit
>
>And via his WC testimony:
>
>Mr. BRENNAN -- "To my best description, a man in his early thirties,
>fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot-10."
>
>~~~~~
>
>Mr. BELIN -- "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the
>man with the rifle was wearing?"
>
>Mr. BRENNAN -- "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in
>khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other
>words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
>
>~~~~~
>
>"Khaki" can mean a variety of color variations, btw. Brownish,
>greenish, yellowish.
>
>I'm also wondering if Brennan might have been color-blind (a
>decent-sized pct. of men are; I am one of them). Yes, this is just a
>guess, and I admit that. But it's just a thought, which could explain
>why there's this variation in Oswald's clothing description from
>Brennan.
>
>Brennan's overall testimony, however, perfectly aligns with Lee Harvey
>Oswald's guilt. Only a rabid CT-nutcase would think otherwise.
>
>http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
>
>
>>>> "David ASSUMES the gunman escaped the building..." <<<
>
>
>Yeah....it's just my silly-willy surmise that the murderer of the
>President probably wouldn't have had much of a desire to stick around
>playing dominoes in the Depository's Domino Room for an hour or so,
>thereby ensuring the building would be sealed off, making escape
>impossible.
>
>But, then again, what do I know?
>
>Perhaps Presidential assassins come in two different classifications:
>
>1.) The "Let's Hurry-Up & Get Out Of Dodge To Keep From Being Caught"
>type.
>
>and...
>
>2.) The CT-Kook's type of killer -- i.e., The "Let's Hang Around The
>Scene Of The Crime For As Long As Possible Just Because We Can" type.
>
>
>>>>"There was a rifle found on the sixth floor. It was a model 91/38 Mannlicher
>>>>Carcano. David, without thinking, ASSUMES that the rifle is Oswald's." <<<
>
>
>You actually think a "Carcano" was found on the 6th Floor?? What kind
>of CT-Kook are you anyway?? Better re-think this mindset, or you'll
>find yourself tossed out of the Kook Club pretty darn quick!
>
>
>>>>"When a gullible LNer like David refuses to remove his head from his ass there
>>>>is no way they can see the light." <<<
>
>
>Astounding CT hypocrisy here.
>
>Everybody should re-read Walt-Kook's post that he wrote re. Brennan.
>And then read over Brennan's own testimony and affidavits (which are
>words that are being twisted and turned every which way but loose by
>Mr. Walt-Kook).
>
>Too funny for words indeed.
>
>This CT-Kook has totally misrepresented Howard Brennan's very-detailed
>testimony and, in the usual CT-Kook fashion, turned Brennan's words
>into "conspiracy"-favoring ones.
>
>It's the normal kook tactic -- i.e., pretend the witness said something
>else (or something that a CT-Kook thinks he {the kook} can turn into
>something "hinky" or "shady").
>
>Care to take the Tippit-murder evidence for a walk in your crackpot
>CT-Kook park? That should make a nice fantasy version of the true
>facts. (The kook version usually does anyway.)
>
David VP
Was Oswald's gun found on the 5th Floor?
Were bullet shells found on the 5th Floor (perfectly corroborating
Harold Norman's testimony re. hearing shells dropping above him)?
Did Jarman, Norman, or Williams see a 5th-Floor sniper? Or hear shots
from the floor they occupied?
I read an excellent and humorous quip authored by staunch CTer Bill
Miller on another forum recently that I believe fits in here nicely. I
hate to actually agree with a CTer about anything, but this quote
deserves a tip of the cap......
"I am beginning to think that you could be fishing and reel in a boot
from the bottom of the lake and rather than to consider the obvious (a
boot was discarded into the lake by another fisherman) ... you'd think
that somewhere there was a fish swimming around with only one boot on."
-- Bill Miller
Bill was speaking to the amazingly-crazy Jack White when he uttered
that quip above....but I can easily utilize it here in order to spew
considerable disdain toward the CT-Kooks who insist on adding unseen
killers to the DP assassination landscape via the flimsiest of evidence
imaginable.
David VP
What difference does it make? Fact is, if Brennan had only positively
IDed just ONE of the Negroes (regardless of which one it was) that fact
PROVES that a person could ID a person on the upper TSBD floors from
across Elm Street (something that many CTers consider to be totally
impossible....so much for that notion).
David VP
And you missed out on the lucrative book deal that surely awaited you
as a result of cracking the case??
Kinda silly on your part, don't you think?
Walt
How well do you think a book entitled... " The Earth Is A Globe" would
have sold in the days when all the "experts" and world leaders of the
day "knew" that the earth was flat.
Or how about a book entitled.... "I flew to the moon and back" Do you
think an author could have got that book published at the time Lewis
and Clark were exporing the Louisana purchase?
When the "experts" ( read liars) spew nonsense, like the earth is flat,
or man will never fly, and egotistical, unthinking, people blindly
accept the "experts" OPINIONS, it would be futile to try to write a
book that contradicts what "experts" and the small minded know.
Walt
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>>"Thank you (& Brennan & Fischer et al) for making my point re the fifth
>>>>floor...." <<<
>
>
>Was Oswald's gun found on the 5th Floor?
>
>Were bullet shells found on the 5th Floor (perfectly corroborating
>Harold Norman's testimony re. hearing shells dropping above him)?
>
>Did Jarman, Norman, or Williams see a 5th-Floor sniper? Or hear shots
>from the floor they occupied?
Notice how when LNers are confronted by incontrovertible witness testimony (I
speak mainly of Fischer's), they ignore it & go on to generalize about something
else? Like the hulls which Capn Fritz pocketed & did who knows what with? As
if tampered-with evidence was somehow worthwhile!
dw
David VP
This is pert-near close to "Classic Idiotic" status!
I thought that "up to 90%" of America (per Ben) believed in a
conspiracy in this case, Walt.
And as of this date there are approx. 450 books out there re. the JFK
case. (And how many of those are "LN"-favoring volumes vs. CT-favoring
ones?)
And yet Walt is of the opinion that it would still be "futile" to write
a pro-CT book solely because his opinion on the assassination
contradicts the "experts and the small-minded" -- even though hundreds
of writers have done just that over the last 40-plus years. (LOL!)
Sounds to me like Walt might not be as certain of his findings as he
lets on, when he said the following to me yesterday.....
"I know who was behind the killing. And I know that Lee Oswald was
framed by the men who killed JFK." -- Walt-Kook
charles wallace
You are showing us somebody's opinion of what the evidence is pertaining
to the empty shell casing CE 543. I do not know if it is the magazine
author's opinion or an interpretation of what Dr. Chapman said about the
empty casing, correct or not.
If the casing shows at least two hits by the firing pin as confirmed by
the FBI test shell CE 557 then it becomes an opinion as to how that
happened. If the casing has a bent lip that prevents it from holding a
bullet then it becomes an opinion as to when it actually held a bullet.
There is additional evidence concerning this shell that proves it had
been in Oswald's rifle but not ever fired from his rifle. In my opinion
this shell CE 543 was in the firing chamber of Oswald's rifle during the
pre-assassination time. The shooter had no time to examine everything
and with a glance thought it was the back end of a live bullet. B. R.
Williams did not leave SE corner window area until about 5 minutes
before the shots. This empty shell not being fired in Oswald's rifle is
proof to me that Oswald was not the shooter and also proof to me that
Oswald did not talk or conspire with the shooter to kill JFK.
In my opinion the shooter pulled the trigger on Oswald's rifle with the
empty shell in the firing chamber while aiming it at JFK. This caused
the second firing pin hit on CE 543. The dent in the lip of CE 543
occurred right after this when the shooter tried to eject this empty
shell too fast.
History will eventually record that Oswald was a patsy and had nothing
to do with the murder of JFK except being tricked out of his rifle.
Nostradamus said as much 500 years ago according to the History Channel
program I watched last night :-)
Regards, Charles
Case Wide Open: A JFK Murder Investigation
http://community.webtv.net/ccwallace/CaseWideOpenAJFK
charles wallace
Jean,
I did a google search and in 1997 Michael Parks posted a much more
detailed account of the shells CE543, CE544, and CE545. He refers to the
magazine American Opinion 2/76. He refers to Dr. E. Forrest Chapman as a
forensic pathologist. Is not a pathologist a scientist?
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "It would be futile to try to write a book that contradicts what "experts" and the small minded know." <<<
>
>
> This is pert-near close to "Classic Idiotic" status!
>
> I thought that "up to 90%" of America (per Ben) believed in a
> conspiracy in this case, Walt.
>
> And as of this date there are approx. 450 books out there re. the JFK
> case. (And how many of those are "LN"-favoring volumes vs. CT-favoring
> ones?)
Many of the books you are referring to were published with the
blessings of the government because they don't pose any real danger of
exposing the truth. ( And upsetting the bureaucrats governing ability)
Many of the books are utter nonsense, and merely throw more mud in the
already muddy water. The government is quite happy to allow these
books to be published, so they can paint all Warren Commission doubters
as "Kooks"
Any book that would jeopardize the status quo, and hamper the ability
of the government to rule by exposing the Warren Commission's lie,
point, by counterpoint, will never be allowed to be published in the
U.S.A.
For example.....
Warren Commission's opinion:.... Oswald, murdered JFK when he crouched
down behind the partly open window,and rested his rifle on the stack of
boxes behind the window, and fired a rifle from the Sniper's nest
Counterpoint: Oswald could NOT have murdered JFK in the manner
described, because an eye witness DESCRIBED the Gunman
as....."STANDING and bracing the rifle against the left side of the
window". That witness said he could see all of the gunman's upper body.
The Warren Commission's opinion isn't even close to what witnesses
DESCRIBED.
Warren Commission's opinion:.... Lee Oswald was the lone killer of
JFK.
Counterpoint: Witnesses saw the gunman dressed in LIGHT colored
clothing at the time of the shooting. Oswald was wearing DARK colored
clothing at the time of the murder.
I could go on and on and blow the official lie apart, point by point,
in a 20 page book, but that book would never be published.
Walt
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "It would be futile to try to write a book that contradicts what "experts" and the small minded know." <<<
>
>
> This is pert-near close to "Classic Idiotic" status!
>
> I thought that "up to 90%" of America (per Ben) believed in a
> conspiracy in this case, Walt.
>
> And as of this date there are approx. 450 books out there re. the JFK
> case. (And how many of those are "LN"-favoring volumes vs. CT-favoring
> ones?)
Many of the books you are referring to were published with the
Walt
> And yet Walt is of the opinion that it would still be "futile" to write
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1154241195.4...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David VP
The above, folks, is called "Attempting To Rationalize And Squirm Out
Of The Stupid Statement I made A Few Minutes Ago".
You failed in that endeavor. You look sillier and kookier than before.
Congrats!
>>> "Oswald could NOT have murdered JFK in the manner described, because an eye witness DESCRIBED the Gunman as....."STANDING and bracing the rifle against the left side of the window"..." <<<
Mighty silly of those cover-up operatives in charge of Brennan, huh? To
let him actually tell the WC what he THOUGHT the assassin was doing and
what posture he thought the assassin was in. Stupid cover-uppers!
BTW -- Brennan ALSO stated that the Negroes on the 5th Floor were
"standing" as well. And, of course, those boys were kneeling in the
windows.
Care to explain that little snafu?
Or are you of the opinion that the cover-up agents told Brennan to make
it look like he was confused about the standing vs. crouching position
of both the killer AND the Negroes (just to make it look a little
better in the record)?
>>> "Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing at the time of the murder." <<<
Was Oswald's white T-shirt "dark colored"?
>>> "I could go on and on and blow the official lie apart..." <<<
Oh, please do go on. There aren't any good sitcoms on TV-Land today
anyway -- so your kooky shit should provide an ample substitute.
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "Many of the books you are referring to were published with the blessings of the government because they don't pose any real danger of exposing the truth. ( And upsetting the bureaucrats governing ability) Many of the books are utter nonsense....{BLAH-BLAH-YOU KNOW...}..." <<<
>
>
> The above, folks, is called "Attempting To Rationalize And Squirm Out
> Of The Stupid Statement I made A Few Minutes Ago".
>
> You failed in that endeavor. You look sillier and kookier than before.
>
> Congrats!
>
>
> >>> "Oswald could NOT have murdered JFK in the manner described, because an eye witness DESCRIBED the Gunman as....."STANDING and bracing the rifle against the left side of the window"..." <<<
>
> Mighty silly of those cover-up operatives in charge of Brennan, huh? To
> let him actually tell the WC what he THOUGHT the assassin was doing and
> what posture he thought the assassin was in. Stupid cover-uppers!
They thought that they could spin Brennan's story, as the only
eyewitness who actually saw the killer fire a rifle toward the triple
underpass, and make it appear that that witness ( Brennan) saw Oswald
committing the murder. And they were right....Many gullible,
unthinking, morons, accept their B.S.
>
> BTW -- Brennan ALSO stated that the Negroes on the 5th Floor were
> "standing" as well. And, of course, those boys were kneeling in the
> windows.
>
> Care to explain that little snafu?
Big deal..... He assumed they were standing. He could only see their
bodies from the chest up. He didn't know they were kneeling so he
ASSUMED they were standing. What does that have to do with Brennan's
DESCRIPTION of the gunman on the sixth floor?? He said the man was
STANDING and could see "All of the man's upper body, from the hips to
the top of his head. If he saw the man's entire upper body, he was
right in saying that the man was standing. The height (18")and
thickness ( 24") of the wall at the window , and the steep angle from
Brennan's position up to the sixth floor window would have precluded
him from seeing the mans feet and legs. You can see that for yourself
in the Dillard and Powell photos.... There are people STANDING behind
windows in the TSBD, and there entire upper bodies are visible.
Brennan could NOT have DESCRIBED a gunman firing from the "let's
pretend" sniper's nest, with the partly open window, as "standing and
bracing against the left side of the window" because he saw the entire
upper portion of the mans body.
>
> Or are you of the opinion that the cover-up agents told Brennan to make
> it look like he was confused about the standing vs. crouching position
> of both the killer AND the Negroes (just to make it look a little
> better in the record)?
>
>
> >>> "Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing at the time of the murder." <<<
>
>
> Was Oswald's white T-shirt "dark colored"?
I doubt it.....And I'll bet his shorts were also light colored. Too bad
they were covered by his brick red shirt and his gray trousers.
Walt
David VP
Did his trousers cover up his white T-shirt too??
And how do you know for certain whether or not Oswald's outer shirt was
buttoned or unbuttoned? If unbuttoned, his white T-shirt would become
much more prominent and visible, like here.....
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/oswald_lee3.jpg
>>> "He {Brennan} assumed they {the 5th-Floor Negroes} were standing." <<<
Right. And Brennan also thought Oswald was "standing" when LHO was
firing the rifle. Therefore, if Brennan was wrong about the Negroes in
this "standing" regard (and he was), why is it not possible that he
made the same error with respect to Oswald's posture? .....
~~~~~~
Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you thought the man was standing. What do
you believe was the position of the people on the fifth floor that you
saw--standing or sitting?
Mr. BRENNAN. I thought they were standing with their elbows on the
window sill leaning out.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of
the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he
sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy
getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his
hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from
his belt up.
~~~~~~
The word "possibility" being an important word in that last Brennan
comment.
To a CT-Kook, Brennan's statements about seeing Oswald pulling the
trigger were all "made up" evidently. But shouldn't the WC people who
were "manipulating" Brennan's words have made sure that Brennan's
"story" conformed to a DOABLE POSSIBILITY (i.e., a shooter being in the
posture Brennan stated and still being able to shoot down Elm at a
sharp westerly angle)?
There's a certain amount of ambiguity and "How Is That Possible?" stuff
that can be culled from virtually ANY witness' testimony. Why should
Brennan be expected to be absolutely infallible in everything he said?
CTers certainly don't expect their conspiracy-favoring witnesses to be
100% accurate about everything they said (to either the WC or to the
press). Jean Hill being a good example ("A dog in the middle of the
seat").
But it seems that the rules are different when it comes to an
LN-favoring witness (like Howard Brennan).
I'm sure the fact that Brennan circled the wrong 5th-Floor window on
CE477 triggers the alarms and bells in a CTer's head, too....with such
a dastardly error probably being reason enough for some kooks to
completely toss out Brennan's entire testimony.*
* = Although, technically, the window Brennan circled in CE477 wasn't
totally incorrect, because James Jarman WAS in the window he circled.
.....
Walt
David VP wrote:
> >>> "I'll bet his {LHO's} shorts were also light colored. Too bad they were covered by his brick red shirt and his gray trousers." <<<
>
> Did his trousers cover up his white T-shirt too??
What do you think??
>
> And how do you know for certain whether or not Oswald's outer shirt was
> buttoned or unbuttoned? If unbuttoned, his white T-shirt would become
> much more prominent and visible, like here.....
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman's shirt as a LIGHT colored ("WHITE OR
DINGY WHITE) possibly a khaki shirt. Khaki is a fabric, as well as a
light tan color. He did NOT say anything about the man wearing a brick
red shirt with the front unbuttoned revealing white undershirt.
You're attempting twist Brennan's words......You've learned well from
the Warren Commission lawyers? Even if you convince yourself that
Brennan was describing Oswald's underwear .....You still have to
explain how Brennan could have seen Oswald's dark gray trousers as "a
shade lighter" than the "dingy white"shirt.
Brennan said that the gunman's trousers were a shade lighter than the
"dingy white" shirt. Oswald was wearing dark gray trousers.
I'm compelled to ask:.... Are you really goofy enough to believe the
gunman was Oswald, wearing only his underwear?
Remember there are lurkers out there......And if you're going to
propose that Oswald was dressed only in his underwear at the time of
the assassination, your credibility might suffer.
>
> http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/oswald_lee3.jpg
>
> >>> "He {Brennan} assumed they {the 5th-Floor Negroes} were standing." <<<
>
> Right. And Brennan also thought Oswald was "standing" when LHO was
> firing the rifle.
It was NOT Lee Oswald that Brennan saw.
Therefore, if Brennan was wrong about the Negroes in
> this "standing" regard (and he was), why is it not possible that he
> made the same error with respect to Oswald's posture? .....
Duh!!.... Dear Dumbass...... Brennan DESCRIBED the man as
STANDING..... He said he could see all of the upper portion of the
gunman's ( Not Oswald) body. If the man had been croutching Brennan
would only have been able to see his head and shoulders...... And he
could not have seen the man bracing the rifle against the left hand
side of the window. ( because the wall beneath the window would have
obstructed his view)
>
> ~~~~~~
>
> Mr. BELIN. I believe you said you thought the man was standing. What do
> you believe was the position of the people on the fifth floor that you
> saw--standing or sitting?
> Mr. BRENNAN. I thought they were standing with their elbows on the
> window sill leaning out.
> Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of
> the man could you see?
> Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he
> sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy
> getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his
> hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from
> his belt up.
> at one time he came to the window and he
> sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy
> getting there.
Brennan saw the gunman sitting sideways on the window sill BEFORE the
motorcade arrived.
In his testimony Brennan said he saw the gunman moving back and foth
between the make believe sniper's nest window and another unspecified
location. Here Brennan makes it clear that the other location was the
wide open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor.
And I could see practically his whole body, from his
> hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from
> his belt up.
Brennan is speaking the truth, and he's not mistaken..... When the man
sat on the sill he was very close to the front face of the TSBD, so
none of the wall beneath the window obstructed his view. When the man
moved further back into the room away from the face of the TSBD les and
less of his body would have been visible. Therefore Brennan is saying
that the man was a little further back from the Face of the TSBD when
he fired the rifle.
David VP
LOL!
The above coming from a person who believes Brennan's words have
already been twisted like a pretzel by the WC. Therefore, any further
"twisting" should probably result in "untwisting" them back into the
truth (per CT-Kooks). Right? Or am I just twisting your interpretation?
Care for a "Mister Salty" snack treat?
(I suddenly feel like listening to a Chubby Checker ditty.)
>>> "Brennan DESCRIBED the man as STANDING..." <<<
And I'm gonna go out a limb here and "DESCRIBE" you as a CT-Kook Of The
First Order. And you're an "isolationist" of the First Order as well --
i.e., you and many other CTers love to isolate culled pieces of
evidence and then slap a "This Means Conspiracy" label on those things.
When, of course, those pieces don't have to mean any such thing.
Brennan said that the Negroes were "standing" too. But were they?
Doesn't this little detail mean ANYTHING to you?
And was Brennan asked how much of the Negroes' bodies he could see from
across the street? If he HAD been asked, what do you think he would
have said? (You like putting words and meanings in witness' mouths, so
give this one a try.)
>>> "Brennan is saying that the man was a little further back from the face of the TSBD when he fired the rifle." <<<
Nice of you to tell us what Mr. Brennan saw (and meant). But, I guess
you (being the kook in this equation) should certainly know better than
Brennan the details of what Howard saw.
And I really don't see how your above evaluation of what Brennan saw
suddenly negates the idea that Brennan saw Oswald doing the shooting.
Of course, it does no such thing (even via your made-up "he saw this or
that" version).
>>> "It was NOT Lee Oswald that Brennan saw." <<<
I'm sorry, but you're just flat-out wrong here (no matter how many
times you choose to stomp your feet and pound your fists).
Because, based on all of the physical and circumstantial evidence in
existence, the likelihood that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone in that
window EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is extremely small and remote.
I have a feeling that most CT-Kooks would have no trouble convincing
themselves that Jack Ruby really DIDN'T shoot Lee Oswald at all (via a
kook's special brand of "research" and their "isolating" powers).
Kooks can make themselves believe anything....the "Moon Landing Hoax"
and the 9/11 crap being perfect examples of such over-the-top CT
looniness.
>>> "Brennan makes it clear that the other location was the wide open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor." <<<
You're nuts. Brennan never said any such thing. He specifically stated,
in fact, that he saw nobody in ANY other windows on the 6th Floor. He
only saw the man in the SN window on the southeast corner of the
Depository.....
BELIN -- Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?
BRENNAN -- Not on that floor.
"That floor" = "The Sixth Floor", of course.
So, Brennan MUST have been lying through his teeth there (per some
CTers), right?
Gee whiz, how can the kooks tell when Brennan is lying and when he's
telling the truth? (Must be something that only CT-Kookatics are "tuned
in" to. A built-in "Witness Lie-Detecting Radar" or something.)
And then we get the flip side from Walt The Kook here.....
>>> "Brennan is speaking the truth, and he's not mistaken..." <<<
But Brennan WAS "mistaken" when he positively identified Lee Oswald as
the man firing a rifle at JFK's car. Right?
Yes, Brennan WAS "mistaken" about some things. How could he NOT be (re.
the assassin's exact height and weight)? He was guessing about those
things.
And he was probably mistaken about the clothing. Although it's not
totally inconceivable that Oswald changed his shirt when he went home
after the assassination. (I, personally, do not think Oswald did change
any clothing. But if he really did spend "3 to 4 minutes", per Earlene
Roberts, in that tiny shoebox of a room on Beckley Avenue on 11/22, he
certainly had ample time to put on a different shirt.)
As anyone can easily see, certain CTers are not capable of viewing the
evidence objectively and, even more importantly, they cannot see (or
refuse to see) the case in its TOTALITY.
Take Brennan's testimony for example....A CT-Kook, bent on having a
conspiracy exist, will nitpick Brennan's words to death until they cast
enough doubt in their own minds as to the veracity of Brennan's sworn
statements.
Who COULDN'T take a person's words and do this same thing? Probably
every assassination witness could be "used" as a "CT" witness in some
way or another by rabid conspiracists.
But when we COMBINE OTHER EVIDENCE in the case (e.g., Oswald's rifle on
the 6th Floor, those shells under that VERY SAME WINDOW where Brennan
says he saw Oswald, Ozzie's prints all over the SN, and LHO's lack of a
verifiable alibi for 12:30) -- the big picture emerges. And it's most
certainly a picture that contains Lee Oswald right smack-dab in the
middle of this assassination.
But CTers choose to isolate, nitpick, and believe in the craziest of
unsupportable things. Given those parameters, who COULDN'T exonerate
dear sweet Lee Harvey?
But isolating and nitpicking the testimony to death in favor of a
perceived "conspiracy" still won't suddenly ERASE from view all of that
"Oswald's Guilty" evidence that is still on the 11/22/63 table (times 2
killings, too, including J.D. Tippit's).
The physical evidence surrounding John Kennedy's assassination that
supports just one shooter by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald is too
overpowering to merely be arbitrarily tossed into the trash can. And
doubting (or denying) the veracity of ALL of this physical evidence,
sans proof of a large amount of foul play, is merely the cowardly act
of hardened conspiracy buffs who simply cannot face the raw fact that
the physical evidence in this case hangs Mr. Oswald as surely as the
Pope is Catholic.
Walt
Donald Willis wrote:
> In article <1154196917.3...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
> >
> >
>> >
> >Don, there is a photo of B.R. Williams and Danny Arce in custidy in the
> >back seat of a police car. There were there because they were
> >"suspects" or at least persons of interest. Brennan had identified
> >Williams as one of the black men he had seen in the fifth floor window,
> >so the cops held him for questioning. I've always suspected that
> >Danny Arce was one of the conspirators.
> >
> >Walt
>
> Walt -- I do too. For one thing, he has no one to corroborate his whereabouts
> at the time of the shooting. And he was with Williams before & after the
> shooting, but supposedly not *during*, & the two came to the Elm St branch of
> the TSBD together.
> dw
The other TSBD employees referred to Arcy as "A Spanish boy". I find
that odd....I believe they used that "Spanish Boy" term because he was
not Mexican. I suspect he was Cuban, and I don't beleive his name was
Danny Arcy. There are many photos of the cubans who were trained by
the CIA for the B.O.P. I believe "Danny Arcy" can be seen in a couple
of them.
As I recall he is attired in a suit and tie, in the photo, in the back
seat of the police car. I doubt that he worked in those clothes that
morning.....so he must have changed his clothes between 12:00 and
12:30. Why would a lowly warehouse worker change from work clothes to
a suit during the lunch hour? I suspect he was dressed for travel at
the time he was detained.
Walt
> >
David VP
Walt
OK..... I already knew you were "sorry", but it's good to hear you
admitting it. The next time you go to your Flat Earth Society meeting
tell them about Walt the kook destroying your cherished fairy tale...
The Warren Report.
>
> Because, based on all of the physical and circumstantial evidence in
> existence, the likelihood that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone in that
> window EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is extremely small and remote.
>
> I have a feeling that most CT-Kooks would have no trouble convincing
> themselves that Jack Ruby really DIDN'T shoot Lee Oswald at all (via a
> kook's special brand of "research" and their "isolating" powers).
>
> Kooks can make themselves believe anything....the "Moon Landing Hoax"
> and the 9/11 crap being perfect examples of such over-the-top CT
> looniness.
>
>
> >>> "Brennan makes it clear that the other location was the wide open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor." <<<
>
>
> You're nuts. Brennan never said any such thing. He specifically stated,
> in fact, that he saw nobody in ANY other windows on the 6th Floor. He
> only saw the man in the SN window on the southeast corner of the
> Depository.....
You're right, Brennan never specified where the gunman was walking
"back and forth" to and from. But He did say he saw the man behind the
S.N. window BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and he said he saw the man
sitting on the window sill which made it possible for him to see the
entire upper portion of the gunman's body "from his hips up to the top
of his head" Brennan's DESCRIPTION can only apply to a wide open
window.....and that window was at the WEST end of the TSBD.
Walt
Walt
OK..... I already knew you were "sorry", but it's good to hear you
admitting it. The next time you go to your Flat Earth Society meeting
tell them about Walt the kook destroying your cherished fairy tale...
The Warren Report.
>
> Because, based on all of the physical and circumstantial evidence in
> existence, the likelihood that Howard L. Brennan saw anyone in that
> window EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald is extremely small and remote.
>
> I have a feeling that most CT-Kooks would have no trouble convincing
> themselves that Jack Ruby really DIDN'T shoot Lee Oswald at all (via a
> kook's special brand of "research" and their "isolating" powers).
>
> Kooks can make themselves believe anything....the "Moon Landing Hoax"
> and the 9/11 crap being perfect examples of such over-the-top CT
> looniness.
>
>
> >>> "Brennan makes it clear that the other location was the wide open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor." <<<
>
>
> You're nuts. Brennan never said any such thing. He specifically stated,
> in fact, that he saw nobody in ANY other windows on the 6th Floor. He
> only saw the man in the SN window on the southeast corner of the
> Depository.....
You're right, Brennan never specified where the gunman was walking
"back and forth" to and from. But He did say he saw the man behind the
S.N. window BEFORE the motorcade arrived, and he said he saw the man
sitting on the window sill which made it possible for him to see the
entire upper portion of the gunman's body "from his hips up to the top
of his head" Brennan's DESCRIPTION can only apply to a wide open
window.....and that window was at the WEST end of the TSBD.
Walt
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>> "If only *DVP* could get the names right!" <<<
>
>
>What difference does it make?
I guess, no difference, when *you* make a mistake. But just let *us* make one,
&...
Fact is, if Brennan had only positively
>IDed just ONE of the Negroes (regardless of which one it was) that fact
>PROVES that a person could ID a person on the upper TSBD floors from
>across Elm Street (something that many CTers consider to be totally
>impossible....so much for that notion).
>
I have to agree with you here. Recall that I've quoted Allen Dulles asking
Williams if Brennan ID'd him downstairs. Brennan did recognize someone in or
just outside the TSBD when the latter came down. And the quotes Dulles uses
makes it sound like a reporter was there when Williams passed Brennan, & that
incident occurred. BUt Brennan seems to have ID'd WIlliams as the *shooter*,
since the quote refers to the *fifth* floor, & earlier Brennan had said the
shooter's window was wide open *just like* the ones on the fifth floor....
dw
Donald Willis
says...
>
>>>> "There was a suspicious man with a rifle on the *fifth* floor..." <<<
>
There was also a DPD-radio-log entry at 12:37 saying the shots seemed to come
from the "2nd window from the end" of the TSBD, an upper east-end window, a
window occupied by... Bonnie Ray Williams. Add that to Euins' "fifth floor", &
Edwards, Fischer, Couch & Brennan's "wide open window"....
dw
>And don't forget the suspicious-looking blob with a "badge" up on the
>Knoll.
>
>And BDM (a shooter?) standing out in the open, getting ready to do his
>dirty deed.
>
>And don't overlook Sewer Man either.
>
>Plus "Hat Man" on the Knoll (next to BM).
>
>And the West-End TSBD killer, too. Don't leave him out.
>
>Plus the unseen Dal-Tex killer(s).
>
>And there was surely a killer or two in the County Records Building,
>too. (Surely.)
>
>And some goof over at Lancer thinks that virtually every tree in DP
>contained a killer. Better look into that possibility too. .....
>
>www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=49021&mesg_id=49021&listing_type=search
>
>And I still haven't ruled out Jackie as an assassin either. (That purse
>she had with her could easily have held Ruby's .38 snub-nosed pistol.
>That fact alone should make Jacqueline Bouvier a "suspect".) .....
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/jackie-love.JPG
>
>
David VP
Can you split those hairs any finer than this, my CT friend??
LOL!
And just exactly how (in ANY fashion) does that 12:37 quote you
provided EXCLUDE the Oswald window on the 6th Floor? It, too, was an
"upper east-end window", correct? And the "2nd window from the end" was
still among the SN "set" of windows, which only had Oswald behind them.
You're really stretching things to try and use your above "12:37
report" stuff to attempt to back up your conspiracy notions.
Only a CT-Kook would rely more on a very early 12:37 PM report -- which
had non-definite information (quite obviously), since nobody had
scoured the building for evidence at that time -- rather than relying
more on the evidence that was later discovered on the Depository's 6th
Floor.
And considering how close that report turned out to be to the actual
6th-Floor SN, I'd say it was fairly accurate indeed. But, incredibly,
it's a sign of "conspiracy" to some CT nuthatches instead.
Go figure. (And then go search your bathroom's medicine cabinet for a
much-needed "common sense" pill.)
Walt
Believing Williams was one of the conspirators ( the shooter) is just
plain silly.
The problem arises from a mistake about which floor was which. Brennan
DESCRIBED the WHITE man dressed in a dingy WHITE shirt as.... "standing
and bracing against the left side of a window" His DESCRIPTION can only
apply to a WIDE OPEN window. That Window was at the WEST end of the
SIXTH FLOOR. It's true there were other windows on the south face of
the TSBD that were wide open at the time but Brennan said he saw the
WHITE gunman behind the partly open window on the EAST end of the SIXTH
floor BEFORE .... BEFORE...the motorcade arrived. So we know he saw
the gunman on the SIXTH floor, and that man fired a rifle out of the
WIDE OPEN WEST END window at the time JFK was murdered.
Walt
Walt
Duh!!.... Brennan was not lying. You really should take a course in
reading comprehension. Dumbass.....the question was:.... "Did you see
ANY OTHER ( besides the gunman) people in any other windows ....
Brennan's answer ....."Not on that floor", quite clearly says he saw
only the gunman on the sixth floor. He saw nobody else in any of the
sixth floor windows.....but he had seen that gunman in at least TWO
different sixth floor windows. He had seen the gunman behind the window
of the make believe "Sniper's Nest" BEFORE the motorcade arrived. And
he had seen that same gunman "sitting on the window sill, of a wide
open window which allowed him to "see all of the upper portion of the
man's body" "From the hips to the top of his head. He also said that
the man was attrired in LIGHT COLORED clothing.
Walt
David VP
just make it up."
Nowhere does Brennan claim to see a person in the West-End
window....and to think Brennan was referring to ANY window (in his
entire testimony) other than the SE corner window of the 6th Floor is
to be a CT-Kook of the first order. Because Brennan was clearly only
referring to ONE window the entire time -- the SN window just above
Norman, et al.
Walt WANTS Brennan to be seeing a gunman in the West End...so, by God,
Walt's gonna put those words in Brennan's mouth, even though Howard
never said them...or alluded to them.
Kooky.