Re: OSWALD, BRENNAN, KENNEDY, BUGLIOSI, & OSWALD'S LIES
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2dc33c3ccd0c3f8c
>>> "General description that was not all that accurate for recognizing LHO -- generally, and also general to probably a huge percentage of males in Dallas." <<<
Prob'ly. But it fit Sweet Lee Harvey too. And it was Lee Harvey's gun
found up there on that same floor where "Howie" saw this "slender
white male".
And Ozzie's prints just happen to be on the gun too; and Ozzie's
prints also just happen to be all over the location on the 6th Floor
(the Sniper's Nest) where Howie sees the "slender white male".
Shouldn't all of this stuff make a person pause and at least consider
the POSSIBILITY of the person Howie saw being Sweet Lee? Or is Lee
Harvey Oswald eliminated as a suspect entirely here?
>>> "Howie didn't say "that's him"..." <<<
Sure he did. He positively IDed the 6th-Floor sniper as Lee Harvey
Oswald. Not on November 22, 1963, true. But Brennan did positively
I.D. LHO as the gunman in the TSBD. You just don't want to believe
him. (What a shocker there! A CTer who doesn't want to believe Howard
Leslie Brennan; aka "Howie"! Imagine that.)
>>> "An O double is your creation, not mine." <<<
It certainly isn't MY "creation", for pity sake. I'm merely repeating
what most hardline CTers think (i.e., that there were "Oswald Doubles"
running all over Texas in late 1963). If you're not one of those
people...here, have a cookie. Then you got one right.
>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<
Gee, I wonder how you could have ever arrived at that difficult
conclusion? LOL.
REPRISE:
>>> "Personally, I think Oswald most likely shot Tippit." <<<
This is too hilarious to waste on just a single response, so an
instant replay is required. And another "LOL" as well.
The "most likely" part is a real treat.
You CTers can't even admit (full-force) that Oswald was Tippit's
murderer.
Hilarious.
>>> "This Howie Brennan thing has been danced many times." <<<
And I'm sure that the late Mr. Brennan would appreciate being called
"Howie", too. It gives him a youthful air.
>>> "It just cracks me up every time someone claims Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window..." <<<
Oswald was identified as the man with a rifle in the window.
Why fight this obvious fact?
>>> "...you just know they are going to drag out Howie [aka Howard L. Brennan]." <<<
Yeah...well...seeing as how "Howie" is the only witness who can be
utilized in such a "Positive Identification Of Oz In The Window"
fashion...then...well...yeah, Howie's gonna get dragged out -- each
and every time this topic surfaces.
Should we LNers pull a CT-Kook's trick and just PRETEND that we have a
dozen witnesses who positively IDed Lee Oswald as Kennedy's killer?
(I think it's time for a "Duh!" here. Don't you?)
>>> "Not even the DPD thought they had a positive ID worth squat. As Chief Jesse Curry wrote in his book, "We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand." " <<<
Yeah, and that's a shame too. Because I always liked Chief Curry. Too
bad that the invisible and crazy "CT stranglehold" took control of him
and his good sense (much the same way the dreaded CT Disease took
ahold of Marina Oswald in later years as well, after she had said for
decades that she thought her husband had killed the President).
Jesse Curry wanted to write a book in the late '60s, and "LNism"
wasn't selling very well back then (what with rabid CT-Kooks like Mark
Lane and Jim Garrison dishing up assorted conspiracy fantasies to the
book-buying masses).
So -- Voila! -- Chief Curry suddenly declares that there was a
conspiracy and that Oswald couldn't be placed in the window. It's
ridiculous. Sad--but ridiculous.
>>> "All the HSCA wanted from Brennan was for him to sign off on his WC testimony.....they would have brought it to his house. He wouldn't do it." <<<
Howard Brennan, of course, isn't really needed at all to arrive at the
truth in this murder case. Because even if there were zero witnesses
to the shooting itself, Lee Oswald's guilt has still been proven 85
ways to Sunday (or Friday)....via the popcorn trail of evidence he
left in his wake, and the many lies he told after his arrest.
Does an innocent man need to tell lie after lie--as Lee Harvey did
after his arrest?
He even lied about where he purchased the gun he had ON HIM when he
was taken into custody.
Oswald was obviously attempting to distance himself from BOTH murders
he committed on 11/22/63 (and distance himself from both murder
weapons).
He didn't tell the truth ONE time (that I can think of) when it came
to any substantive issue connected with the murders of Kennedy and
Tippit, particularly with respect to his C2766 Carcano rifle and his
Smith & Wesson revolver.
Lee Oswald was a Lying Machine when it came to those weapons.
As Vince Bugliosi said to the London jury in 1986:
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us
he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he
had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell
us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had
nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was
framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to
be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!!"
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; VIA "ON TRIAL:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (c.1986)*
============================
* = The above portions of Bugliosi's Final Summation to the jury
cannot be found on the MPI Home Video DVD edition of "ON TRIAL: LEE
HARVEY OSWALD" (released to the public on October 28, 2008), but Vince
said them to the jury just the same. Those VB comments aired in 1988,
when an alternate and slightly re-edited version of the "trial" was
shown on cable TV, commemorating the 25th anniversary of the
assassination.
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3455512-post.html
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2dc33...
>
> >>> "General description that was not all that accurate for recognizing LHO -- generally, and also general to probably a huge percentage of males in Dallas." <<<
>
> Prob'ly. But it fit Sweet Lee Harvey too. And it was Lee Harvey's gun
> found up there on that same floor where "Howie" saw this "slender
> white male".
>
And Ozzie's prints just happen to be on the gun too;
Lie, you squirmin maggot.....if you think that's going to change the
FACTS...
The FBI found NO prints that could be identified as Oswald's on that
gun...THAT is a Fact, and all the lies you can conjure up aren't going
to change that fact..... So wiggle squirm maggot.....
> www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7...
David Von Pein
>>> "And he [Brennan] had the advantage of seeing Oswald on TV before any attempts, at that." <<<
Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
about 165 pounds?
And if Brennan didn't give that description to Sawyer prior to 12:45
PM on 11/22, then it means that yet another (unidentified) person saw
the gunman and described him just exactly as Brennan would later
describe him. And Marrion Baker said Oswald looked about 30 years old.
And even most CTers admit that Baker saw the real LHO on Nov. 22nd.
>>> "I know of very few CTs who promote an Oswald double. Perhaps you can name some who do for me." <<<
LOL.
Hilarious.
A huge percentage of conspiracy theorists have said they think there
was at least ONE instance of an "Oz Double" during the calendar year
of 1963. Virtually all of the CTers that populate any online forum on
the Internet believe in some kind of "Oswald Imposter" theory. And
bigger CT names like Armstrong, Garrison, Stone, and DiEugenio (to
name just a very small number) believe(d) in some kind of "Fake
Oswald" theory as well.
Plus: Those that believe in the "Oswald Double/Imposter" theories
would include every CTer who thinks Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico
City in September 1963 (which I'd guess is pretty close to, roughly,
90%-95% of all conspiracy theorists).
I've encountered very few CTers who actually think that LHO went to
Mexico in '63, despite the volumes of evidence to prove that Oswald
did go there.
>>> "Well, this little exchange shows two things ... you paint with a very wide brush, and with quite an attitude; and your standard for positive identification is just like every other LN." <<<
I sure hope so. Because based on the evidence in this case, I know
that Brennan POSITIVELY SAW Lee Oswald shooting at JFK.
Next dance please.....
>>> "Anyone in the world who had been near a TV that afternoon could have picked O out of that lineup." <<<
And you think that people doing the identifying would have been so
easily swayed that they would be willing to positively identify a man
whom they did NOT see at the scene of the various 11/22 murders (both
JFK's and Tippit's)?
Nice of you to paint (at least potentially, via your comments above)
all of the witnesses with such a wide "I THINK I'LL I.D. OSWALD, EVEN
THOUGH I KNOW IT WASN'T HIM" brush.
>>> "Funny how LNs poo-poo witnesses from within the TSBD who say that they saw O at other places within the TSBD just minutes before the shooting. They were lying, or mistaken or confused. And they KNEW the man." <<<
Based on that pesky TOTALITY of evidence again, those other witnesses
are almost certainly wrong.
I guess Barb wants to just sweep that LHO-Did-It totality under the
rug forever. Huh, Barbara?
>>> "You said it. He is dragged out because out of all the people who saw a man in the window with a rifle, none were able to ID O. So latch onto Brennan ...despite his less than stellar performance." <<<
Who should we latch onto then--a "fake" witness who never saw a thing?
Brennan is it (as far as positive IDing of the gunman goes). Period. I
know that. I don't deny it. But why should he be tossed into the
garbage heap either?
>>> "You don't dance the sidestep very well. Not nearly subtle enough to pull it off." <<<
You seem to have two left feet yourself. Maybe Arthur Murray can help.
>>> "I find it almost impossible to not comment on when I see an LN claim Oswald was positively [IDed] as the shooter in the window. Of course, they never include WHO they are talking about in their initial posit." <<<
When just a small amount of common sense is applied to this situation,
it becomes plainly obvious that the following is true:
Based on the totality of evidence that exists in the JFK case (a
totality that's not going anyplace; it's here forever), the chances
that Howard L. Brennan saw someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald
shooting a gun at John Kennedy on 11/22/63 are so remote they can be
considered practically non-existent (if you're a reasonable person
looking at this "totality", that is).
CTers, naturally, must pull away from and deny the obvious evidence-
based truth and logic that exists in the above paragraph.
Conspiracists have to deny it. Because if they faced that truth and
faced the real evidence in the case, then their beloved patsy is
guilty. And no true-blue lifelong CTer could stand for that.
Care to dance some more, Barb?
>>>> "Have a cookie, you'll feel better." <<<
Make it a Hydrox this time, okay?
aeffects
> On 6 Nov, 01:45, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:>www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2dc33...
>
> > >>> "General description that was not all that accurate for recognizing LHO -- generally, and also general to probably a huge percentage of males in Dallas." <<<
>
> > Prob'ly. But it fit Sweet Lee Harvey too. And it was Lee Harvey's gun
> > found up there on that same floor where "Howie" saw this "slender
> > white male".
>
> And Ozzie's prints just happen to be on the gun too;
>
> Lie, you squirmin maggot.....if you think that's going to change the
> FACTS...
>
> The FBI found NO prints that could be identified as Oswald's on that
> gun...THAT is a Fact, and all the lies you can conjure up aren't going
> to change that fact..... So wiggle squirm maggot.....
atta-boy....
<sniperoo>
Walt
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/2dc33...
>
>
> Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
> the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
> about 165 pounds?
Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
about 165 pounds?
Of course Brennan had seen anybody on TV five minutes after the
shooting ya flippin moron....
Do you really think that you're fooling anybody with your twisting of
the facts??
Just minutes after the shooting Howard Brennan went to tell the cops
there in front of the TSBD that he'd seen a slender white male about
5' 10" tall, in his EARLY THIRTIES, who weighed about 165 to 175 lbs.
The man was dressed in light colored clothing and he was firing a HIGH
POWERED ( hunting ) rifle possibly a 30-30 Winchester while STANDING
up behind the window at the corner of the building that was directly
beside JFK at the time of the shooting.