HOWARD BRENNAN'S PERFECT DESCRIPTION
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/77126c37d3f20cc7/0e7145a9ce6df6e8?#0e7145a9ce6df6e8
>>> "What color clothes was Oswald wearing??" <<<
Purple with bright orange stripes maybe??
But what difference would it really make to a kook like Walt anyway?
He'd find some excuse to get Patsy Oz off the murdering hook, even if
Brennan had said this when describing the assassin in the SN window
(which would be "too perfect and too pat", so there's Walt's excuse
right there):
"He was 5-feet-9 exactly; of slender build; he weighed 148.75
pounds; he had dark (brownish, and thinning) hair; he was wearing a
white T-shirt underneath an open (unbuttoned) brownish-colored long-
sleeved shirt; he was 24 years and 1 month old; he had pursed lips;
and he was very soft-spoken usually (although I only heard him talk
just that one time, when he looked at me and hollered: "Lookie up here
Howard, I'm Lee H. Oswald and I'm going to shoot the President!"; so I
didn't get a chance to hear his speech patterns too much).
"He also had approximately $15.15 in his dark-colored trousers.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot...he was born on October 18, 1939. And he was
born on a Wednesday...in New Orleans. Oh...and he likes potatoes for
dinner.
"Sorry I can't help you fellows out any more. I tried to get a
look at his Social Security Card, and I also tried to count his nose
hairs too, but my eyes aren't quite THAT good." -- Howard L. Brennan;
11/22/63
mnhay27
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
Ah, Howard Brennan the man must be faster than a speeding bullet
because he told the Warren Commission he saw Oswald fire his last shot
(3H144) and told CBS (September 27, 1964) he saw the President's head
explode!
That's not to mention his incredible eyesight which according to
commission counsel Joe Ball (during his Dealey Plaza reenactment) gave
Brennan "difficulty seeing a figure in the window, much less
identifying someone from the sidewalk.”
Yep, some super-witness that Brennan.
David Von Pein
>>> "Howard Brennan...told CBS (September 27, 1964) he saw the President's head explode!" <<<
This is dead wrong. (I suppose your next claim will be: "CBS edited
this filmed interview", right?):
mnhay27
Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded." (From p20 of
the CBS transcript, Nov 22 and the Warren Report)
aeffects
gee, where did Von Pein go? emails are flying back-n-forth.... Von
Pein: "What do I say? Or, do I just move on?" Help Vince, I need help!"
Walt
Ha,ha,ha,ha,hee,hee,hee...ROTFLMAO!!
What a perfect example of the "thinking" of a LNer idiot....
What Brennan's statement indicates is: he witnessed the actions of
TWO different gunmen....
Brennan saw the sixth floor sniper "fire his last shot" and he saw the
President's head explode as the result of a shot from a different
shooter. Only a stupid LNer with tunnal vision would lack the brains
to understand the meaning of brennan's statements.
>
> That's not to mention his incredible eyesight which according to
> commission counsel Joe Ball (during his Dealey Plaza reenactment) gave
> Brennan "difficulty seeing a figure in the window, much less
> identifying someone from the sidewalk.”
>
> Yep, some super-witness that Brennan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c34a6f10a5818dab
>>> "Ah, Howard Brennan[,] the man must be faster than a speeding bullet[,] because he told the Warren Commission he saw Oswald fire his last shot (3H144) and told CBS (September 27, 1964) he saw the President's head explode! .... Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded." (From p20 of the CBS transcript, Nov 22 and the Warren Report). .... That's not to mention his incredible eyesight[,] which according to commission counsel Joe Ball (during his Dealey Plaza reenactment) gave Brennan "difficulty seeing a figure in the window, much less identifying someone from the sidewalk." Yep, some super-witness that Brennan." <<<
And yet Howard Brennan IDed Oswald nonetheless, didn't he?
And your comment about Brennan's eyesight is ridiculous (and you have
to know why it's ridiculous), since we know that his eyesight was
damaged only AFTER the assassination of JFK. Brennan had an accident
which affected his eyesight in JANUARY OF 1964, two months AFTER he
watched Oswald kill President Kennedy. Let's have a look (3 H 147):
DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the
time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?"
HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir."
BELIN -- "What has happened?"
BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted."
BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?"
BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe,
in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was
completely blind for about 6 hours."
BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?"
BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good."
BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?"
BRENNAN -- "Yes."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0078a.htm
Also:
Per many conspiracy theorists (including one of the resident mega-
kooks here at this forum, Walter Cakebread), Howard Leslie Brennan
KNEW full well that the man he saw firing a rifle from the TSBD on
11/22/63 was positively NOT Lee Harvey Oswald....but Brennan later
positively identified the shooter he saw as Lee Harvey Oswald ANYWAY.
Basic question for everyone --- What would it take for you,
personally, to have positively identified a specific person as a
murderer if you REALLY KNEW THAT THE PERSON YOU SAID WAS GUILTY WAS
NOT THE PERSON YOU SAW?
Would ANY amount of "coersion" or "strong-arming" (or whatever) be
ENOUGH to make you perform such a vile deed (even AFTER the person you
are wrongly fingering was killed in a police basement by a local
nightclub owner)?
In such a situation, why on Earth wouldn't Brennan have merely
remained wishy-washy and said this to the Warren Commission? ---
I got a pretty good look at the assassin in the window, but in
all honesty, Mr. Chief Justice, I cannot in good conscience say that
the man I saw in the window was positively Lee Harvey Oswald.
Instead, on March 24, 1964, Howard Brennan tells the Warren Commission
this (3 H 148):
DAVID W. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can
or cannot positively identify the man you saw on [sic; in] the sixth
floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?"
HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "I could at that time--I could, with all
sincerity, identify him as being the same man."
BELIN -- "Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the
same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a
couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?"
BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0078b.htm
Conspiracy theorists who greatly dislike Howard Brennan's above WC
testimony would have a much better argument to buttress the notion
that Brennan was a liar (or was blind as a bat, etc.) if those three
bullet shells from OSWALD'S rifle weren't located underneath the very
same window from where that "liar"/"blind man" named Brennan said he
saw a man named OSWALD shooting a rifle at the President.
And those same Brennan-bashing conspiracists would also be on much
firmer "Brennan Was Wrong About Oswald" ground if that Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle (which belonged to OSWALD) wasn't also found on that
same sixth floor from where Brennan said he saw the owner of that gun
(OSWALD) firing shots at JFK's limousine.
And the persistent anti-Brennan arguments coming from the various
conspiracists would most certainly be much more convincing if OSWALD'S
very own fingerprints and palmprints had not been found littering the
very same small piece of real estate in the southeast corner of the
Book Depository's sixth floor from where Howard Brennan said he saw a
man named OSWALD firing a gun.
Bottom Brennan Line:
Even if Howard Brennan had NOT positively identified the 6th-Floor
assassin as Oswald, the sum total of evidence in this murder case is
telling any reasonable person that the odds that Mr. Brennan saw
anyone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald firing that rifle at President
Kennedy are so low that those odds could be considered virtually
nonexistent.
================================
RELATED BRENNAN ARTICLES:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a83751f6ce319004
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d26167f23399f7d6
================================
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c34a6f10...
>
> >>> "Ah, Howard Brennan[,] the man must be faster than a speeding bullet[,] because he told the Warren Commission he saw Oswald fire his last shot (3H144) and told CBS (September 27, 1964) he saw the President's head explode! .... Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded." (From p20 of the CBS transcript, Nov 22 and the Warren Report). .... That's not to mention his incredible eyesight[,] which according to commission counsel Joe Ball (during his Dealey Plaza reenactment) gave Brennan "difficulty seeing a figure in the window, much less identifying someone from the sidewalk." Yep, some super-witness that Brennan." <<<
>
> And yet Howard Brennan IDed Oswald nonetheless, didn't he?
which time 1st, 2nd or 3rd?
<snip the Lone Nut nonsense>
David Von Pein
>>> "which time 1st, 2nd or 3rd?" <<<
What's the difference?
Bottom line -- Brennan DID I.D. LHO.
And how many people here would be willing to I.D. a person they KNEW
didn't commit a crime?
Potential answer (of course) is -- Zero people would do that.
aeffects
> >>> "which time 1st, 2nd or 3rd?" <<<
>
> What's the difference?
>
> Bottom line -- Brennan DID I.D. LHO.
>
> And how many people here would be willing to I.D. a person they KNEW
> didn't commit a crime?
conspiracy son, you forget that term.... wake Vince, tell'em to smell
the roses, cordite everywhere in DP!
Gil Jesus
As a "witness", that makes him unreliable.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/653546ecd4a3df9f
mnhay27
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/c34a6f10...
>
> >>> "Ah, Howard Brennan[,] the man must be faster than a speeding bullet[,] because he told the Warren Commission he saw Oswald fire his last shot (3H144) and told CBS (September 27, 1964) he saw the President's head explode! .... Brennan told CBS "The President's head just exploded." (From p20 of the CBS transcript, Nov 22 and the Warren Report). .... That's not to mention his incredible eyesight[,] which according to commission counsel Joe Ball (during his Dealey Plaza reenactment) gave Brennan "difficulty seeing a figure in the window, much less identifying someone from the sidewalk." Yep, some super-witness that Brennan." <<<
>
> And yet Howard Brennan IDed Oswald nonetheless, didn't he?
>
> And your comment about Brennan's eyesight is ridiculous (and you have
> to know why it's ridiculous), since we know that his eyesight was
> damaged only AFTER the assassination of JFK. Brennan had an accident
> which affected his eyesight in JANUARY OF 1964, two months AFTER he
> watched Oswald kill President Kennedy. Let's have a look (3 H 147):
>
> DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the
> time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?"
>
> HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir."
>
> BELIN -- "What has happened?"
>
> BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted."
>
> BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?"
>
> BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe,
> in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was
> completely blind for about 6 hours."
>
> BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?"
>
> BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good."
>
> BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?"
>
> BRENNAN -- "Yes."
>
DVP strikes back! Keep on apologizing for Brennan, David, you need him
after all.
You are right, of course, Brennan did claim his eyesight was fine on
Nov 22, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't take his word for it.
For you see, Brennan's other actions and statements demonstrate how
useless a witness he really was. As we've already established Brennan
claimed to have seen the sixth floor assassin take aim and fire his
last shot and yet he manages to contradict his own testimony:
Mr. McCLOY:.Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of
what was either the second or the third shot?
Mr. BRENNAN: No.
Mr. McCLOY: Could you see that he had discharged the rifle?
Mr. BRENNAN: No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time.
The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive
and dear, with no echo on my part.
Mr. McCLOY: Yes. But you saw him aim?
Mr. BRENNAN: Yes.
Mr. McCLOY: Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or
the flash?
Mr. BRENNAN: No.
Mr. McCLOY: But you heard the last shot.
Mr. BRENNAN: The report; yes, sir. (3H154)
As most rifles do, the carcano emits a small amount of smoke (26H811)
and manifests a recoil (3H451), and yet super-sighted, mega-obsever
Brennan managed to miss both these things - but he was able to beat
that bullet and watch the President's head explode. He also saw the
assassin standing when he fired the shots (R144) - apparantly the
gunman Brennan saw managed to fire through a double thickness of glass
without breaking it! Further earning his title of "accurate observer,"
Brennan was shown a photo of the TSBD and asked to circle the windows
in which he saw the assassin and the black employees below. First he
circled TWO adjoining windows on the sixth floor as the ONE from which
"Oswald" fired and then picked the wrong window below as the one the
employees were hanging out of! (CE477)
In the end, what matters most is that Brennan did not pick Oswald out
of a line-up until after he was dead. (R145) His excuse, as you know,
was that he was afraid because he believed he was the only eyewitness.
And yet he had to know about another eyewitness, Amos Euins, because
he pointed him out to Secret Service agent Sorrels. (7H349) And even
his identification of Oswald as the man who most resembled the sixth
floor shooter is invalid because he twice saw Oswald on television
first and admitted to the FBI that this "of course, did not help him
retain the original impression of the man in the window with the
rifle." (24H406)
The idea that Brennan was afraid is total nonsense anyway. In fact, it
appears that he was so pleased with his instant cellebrity status that
he just had to tell David Belin about how his name and what he saw was
all over Dallas TV before he went to view the line-up:
Mr. BRENNAN: Well, don't you have photographs of me talking to the
Secret Service men right here?
Mr. BELIN: I don't believe so.
Mr. BRENNAN: You should have. It was on television before I got home
my wife saw it.
Mr. BELIN: On television?
Mr. BRENNAN: Yes. (3H150)
Gil Jesus
in information that has been presented so far:
as Howard Brennan a star witness, or a liar ?
Brennan told the Commission that he was looking at the gunman--not
Kennedy--when the last shot was fired and that he had stopped looking
at the Presidential car after the first shot. (3 H 143-144)
But the Zapruder film shows Brennan still looking at the motorcade on
Elm Street--and not at the TSBD-as late as frame 207, some time after
most feel a shot was fired.
A POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION ?
At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely
RESEMBLED the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he
failed to make a positive identification.
Mr. BRENNAN. I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that
Oswald--or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a
closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the
lineup. (3 H 147)
Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the
time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I TOLD THEM THAT I COULD NOT MAKE A POSITIVE
IDENTIFICATION. (3 H 148)
What makes Brennan's refusal to initially identify oswald as the
shooter even more compelling is that he saw Oswald on TV BEFORE he
went down to view the police lineup:
Mr. BELIN. In the meantime, had you seen any pictures of Lee Harvey
Oswald on television or in the newspapers?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, on television.
Mr. BELIN. About when was that, do you believe?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe I reached home quarter to three or something of
that, 15 minutes either way, and I saw his picture twice on television
before I went down to the police station for the lineup.
Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen
Oswald on television would have affected your identification of him
one way or the other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know. (3 H 147-148 )
A CHANGE OF HEART
After Oswald was dead, a federal agent spoke with him. It was not
Brennan but a "Secret Service man from Houston" who first suggested
"security reasons" as an excuse to the reluctant witness:
"You said you couldn't make a positive identification. Did you do that
for security reasons personally or couldn't you?" is how Brennan
quoted the agent. (3 H 148)
Mr. BELIN. did you ever LATER tell any officer or investigating person
anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe SOME DAYS LATER----I don't recall exactly--and
I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams,
I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was
Williams or not.
Then Brennan tells the circumstances under which he came to identify
Oswald:
Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you
later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. 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.
When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Brennan stated that he
could have made the identification. ( 3 H 148 )
FEARED FOR HIS LIFE ?
After Brennan came forward he told police he could have made a
positive identification but was afraid for the safety of himself and
his family.
Brennan's explanation that he failed to identify Oswald out of fear
that he was the only eyewitness and, as such, might be silenced or
killed. Posner cites the fact that Brennan considered moving his
family and that the FBI posted guards at his house for three weeks.
This picture of a scared and reluctant witness has some cracks in it,
however: According to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan
knew that he was not the only eyewitness. When Sorrels spoke with
Brennan at the TSBD about half an hour after the assassination,
Brennan himself pointed out young Amos Euins as one who had seen the
gunman.
Mr. STERN. How did you happen to talk to Mr. Brennan?
Mr. SORRELS. I asked--I don't know who, someone there "Is there anyone
here that saw anything?" And someone said, "That man over there."He
was out in front of the building and I went right to him.
Mr. STERN. Did Mr. Brennan tell you anything else?
Mr. SORRELS. I asked him whether or not he thought he could identify
the person that he saw, and he, of course, gave me a description of
him, said that he appeared to be a slender man, he had on what
appeared to be a light jacket or shirt or something to that effect,
and that he thought he could identify him--said he was slender build.
Because I was definitely interested in someone that had seen something
that could give us some definite information. And I also asked if he
had seen anybody else, and he pointed to a young colored boy there, by
the name of Euins.
(7 H 349)
Brennan's subsequent actions belie his claim that he feared being
harmed because of what he had seen and so took steps to avoid public
exposure. In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report,
Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide broadcast,
"CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on
September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator Walter
Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren
Report. Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the
October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. If Brennan was taking steps to
avoid public exposure, they were certainly extraordinary steps. (In
the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren
Commission testimony when, having blown his cover, he told the nation
that "The President's head just exploded."
In both his Sheriff's Department statement and his comments to
Sorrels, Brennan indicated a willingness to identify the man in the
window "if I ever saw him again." The most reasonable explanation for
Brennan's failure to ever make a positive identification of the man is
that he never saw him again--at the lineup or elsewhere.
NOW YOU SEE ME, NOW YOU DON'T
CE 2003, pg 293 omits Howard Brennan from its list of witnesses who
viewed Oswald in a police lineup.
CONCLUSION
At the lineup, Brennan selected Oswald as the person who most closely
resembled the man he had seen in the window with the rifle, but he
failed to make a positive identification.
Later, Brennan told police he could have made a positive
identification but was afraid for the safety of himself and his
family. Then, when an FBI agent spoke with him a few weeks later,
Brennan seemed to revert to being unable to positively identify
Oswald. When he appeared before the Warren Commission, Brennan stated
that he could have made the identification.
The Zapruder film shows Brennan still looking at the motorcade on Elm
Street--and not at the TSBD-as late as frame 207, some time after
most
feel a shot was fired. Brennan was confused as to whether the man he
had seen was standing or sitting, and his
description of the clothing worn by the man in the window is
inconsistent with the outfit Oswald apparently wore at that time.
His failure to make a positive identification of Oswald, as well as
the issue of the gunman's clothing, make it impossible to fairly cite
Brennan as proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor, a
fact
which even the Warren Commission recognized.
The Warren Commission dealt with the dilemma of Brennan's uncertainty
in this manner: "The Commission ... does not base its conclusions
concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent
certain identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man he saw fire
the
rifle.,, (WR, p. 146)
In 1987, twenty-four years after the assassination, Mr. Brennan
joined
with a Baptist minister named Edward Cherryholmes to write a book
about his observations. In the book, Brennan added many details, some
of them contradictory to his sworn statements of 1963-64.
The Brennan-Cherryholmes book, Eyewitness to History: The Kennedy
Assassination As Seen by Howard Brennan, written twenty four years
after the event, and, of course, not sworn to.
Brennan's explanation that he failed to identify Oswald out of fear
that he was the only eyewitness and, as such, might be silenced or
killed. Posner cites the fact that Brennan considered moving his
family and that the FBI posted guards at his house for three weeks.
This picture of a scared and reluctant witness has some cracks in it,
however:
*According to Secret Service agent Forrest Sorrels, Brennan knew that
he was not the only eyewitness. When Sorrels spoke with Brennan at
the
TSBD about half an hour after the assassination, Brennan himself
pointed out young Amos Euins as one who had seen the gunman. (7 H
349)
*In both his Sheriff's Department statement and his comments to
Sorrels, Brennan indicated a willingness to identify the man in the
window "if I ever saw him again." The most reasonable explanation for
Brennan's failure to ever make a positive identification of the man
is
that he never saw him again--at the lineup or elsewhere.
*It was not Brennan but a "Secret Service man from Houston" who first
suggested "security reasons" as an excuse to the reluctant witness:
"You said you couldn't make a positive identification. Did you do
that
for security reasons personally or couldn't you?" is how Brennan
quoted the agent. (3 H 148)
* In August, 1964, before the release of the Warren Report,
Brennan spoke on camera with CBS News, for their nationwide
broadcast,
"CBS News Extra: November 22, 1963 and the Warren Report," aired on
September 27, 1964. Interviews were done, according to narrator
Walter
Cronkite, a month before the telecast and the release of the Warren
Report. Brennan also posed for a photograph which appeared in the
October 2, 1964 issue of Life magazine. If Brennan was taking steps
to
avoid public exposure, they were certainly extraordinary steps.
(In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his sworn Warren
Commission testimony when he told the nation that "The President's
head just exploded."
Brennan had told the Commission that he was looking at the gunman--not
Kennedy--when the
last shot was fired and that he had stopped looking at the
Presidential car after the first shot
(3 H 143-144)
Walt
Why the hell don't you learn to READ.... Brennan clearly said the
sixth floor sniper was STANDING..Here's his statement....
Mr. Belin.--- Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you
saw him this last time?
Mr. Brennan. ---Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and
resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right
shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim
and fired his last shot. As I calculate a couple of seconds. He drew
the gun back from the window as though he was drawing it back to his
side and maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself
that he hit his mark, and then he disappeared.
And, at the same moment, I was diving off of that firewall and to the
right for bullet protection of this stone wall that is a little higher
on the Houston side.
What's so damned difficult about understanding that Howard Brennan
said...."HE WAS STANDING UP"
Howard Brennan KNEW that Lee Oswald was NOT the man he'd seen with a
rifle on the sixth floor. He KNEW that Oswald was younger, thinner,
had lighter colored hair, was dressed differently than than the sniper
he'd seen, AND he knew the sniper was NOT holding a MILITARY rifle.
Brennan DESCRIBED the rifle as a HUNTING rifle "possibly a 30.30
Winchester"
Try as you will you can not escape the FACT that Brennan DESCRIBED the
sniper as a man who was not Oswald who was using a snipers rifle.
After the cops murdered Oswald there was no longer any reason to tell
the truth to clear an innocent man, and every reason ( fear for his
family's safety) to go along with what the authorities wanted him to
say.
> (In the CBS program, Brennan blatantly contradicted his ...
>
> read more »
Gil Jesus
of the gunman's position.
" Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was
standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting
or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have
believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . . Since the
window ledges in the Depository building are lower than in most
buildings [one foot high], a person squatting or kneeling exposes more
of his body than would normally be the case. From the street, this
creates the impression that the person is standing." (WCR 144-45)
The Report's explanation is bolstered by the fact that had the gunman
been standing, he would have been aiming his rifle through a double
thickness of glass, only his legs visible to witness Brennan.
(see photographs taken from inside the window, at 22H 484-85).
Brennan LIED about seeing the gunman fire standing up and the
Commission tried to blow it off as an "honest mistake".
tomnln
Under the Testimony Button>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan.htm
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bf29c13d-780f-45f4...@r36g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"mnhay27" <mnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7399c39d-800c-45d1...@x6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
window while standing is right in the WC Exhibits:
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
More proof that Brennan was a liar.
robc...@netscape.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
You can lie and distort all you want, but the truth is Brennan did NOT
ID LHO at the lineup. End of story.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "which time 1st, 2nd or 3rd?" <<<
>
> What's the difference?
>
> Bottom line -- Brennan DID I.D. LHO.
>
> And how many people here would be willing to I.D. a person they KNEW
> didn't commit a crime?
When did this happen?? Oh that is right, AFTER LHO was dead!! See,
before he was gunned down in cold blood while in police custody
Brennan DID NOT ID LHO. Hmmm.
Walt
> One of the main indications of Brennan's inaccuracy is his description
> of the gunman's position.
>
> " Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was
> standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting
> or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have
> believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . .
Only a dumbass who can't READ would believe this bullshit.....
Brennan DESCRIBED the man as standing and he said he could see all of
the man's upper body from his hips to the top of his head. How the
hell could Brennan have seen a man FROM HIS HIPS TP THE TOP OF HIS
HEAD if the man was in any position but STANDING????
Walt
> The proof that a gunman could NOT have fired from that half-open
> window while standing is right in the WC Exhibits:
That's absolutely right!!.... Oswald was NOT the sixth floor sniper
and the sniper did NOT fire any rifle from the so called "Sniper's
Nest" (east end window) The Sniper was STANDING behind a wide open
window at the WEST end of the sixth floor.
robc...@netscape.com
> On 14 Apr, 10:49, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the main indications of Brennan's inaccuracy is his description
> > of the gunman's position.
>
> > " Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was
> > standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting
> > or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have
> > believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . .
>
> Only a dumbass who can't READ would believe this bullshit.....
>
> Brennan DESCRIBED the man as standing and he said he could see all of
> the man's upper body from his hips to the top of his head. How the
> hell could Brennan have seen a man FROM HIS HIPS TP THE TOP OF HIS
> HEAD if the man was in any position but STANDING????
The WC is the group that CHANGED his testimony because even they
realized the man WOULD BE SHOOTING THROUGH THE WALL IF HE WAS
STANDING!
As I have said before Brennan is a man who allowed the WC to change
his story to make it fit their preconceived idea of LHO being the sole
gunman. We all KNOW Brennan's story was changed often so what is your
point here?
The key thing for me is he did NOT ID LHO while he was alive as the
man he saw in the window.
>
> Since the
>
>
>
> > window ledges in the Depository building are lower than in most
> > buildings [one foot high], a person squatting or kneeling exposes more
> > of his body than would normally be the case. From the street, this
> > creates the impression that the person is standing." (WCR 144-45)
>
> > The Report's explanation is bolstered by the fact that had the gunman
> > been standing, he would have been aiming his rifle through a double
> > thickness of glass, only his legs visible to witness Brennan.
>
> > (see photographs taken from inside the window, at 22H 484-85).
>
> > Brennan LIED about seeing the gunman fire standing up and the
> > Commission tried to blow it off as an "honest mistake".- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> On 14 Apr, 10:49, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the main indications of Brennan's inaccuracy is his description
> > of the gunman's position.
>
> > � � " Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was
> > standing when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting
> > or kneeling. . . . It is understandable, however, for Brennan to have
> > believed that the man with the rifle was standing. . . .
>
> Only a dumbass who can't READ would believe this bullshit.....
>
> Brennan DESCRIBED the man as standing and he said he could see all of
> the man's upper body from his hips to the top of his head. � How the
> hell could Brennan have seen a man FROM HIS HIPS TP THE TOP OF HIS
> HEAD if the man was in any position but STANDING????
Only a dumbass would believe that a shooter could aim and fire the
weapon STANDING with the window in this position.
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
BRENNAN WAS A LIAR, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
GET OVER IT.
Gil Jesus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Within seconds of the crime, Howard Brennan was telling people that he
had seen the shooter. He soon became the lynchpin of the case against
Oswald. He told the Warren Commission that the shooter had been ‘in
his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender,
possibly 5-foot 10’ and weighed ‘from 160 to 170 pounds.’ When
explicitly asked, Brennan affirmed that the shooter had been white.
(3H144)
However, we now know that Brennan was never in a position to furnish
so full a description of the assassin.
Beginning with Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After The Fact (1967),
evidence has steadily mounted that Brennan has to have been lying, at
least about some of his claims. According to Duffy and Ricci,
‘Brennan’s testimony is full of discrepancies, including the fact that
he said the man in the window was standing, which allowed him to
estimate the man's height and weight.
Photos taken seconds after the shooting show the window was raised
less than halfway, suggesting the shooter would have had to kneel.’
( Trask, Pictures of the Pain pgs. 448 - 449 )
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
Even Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission was skeptical: ‘In staging a
reconstruction on March 20, 1964, Ball found that Brennan had trouble
seeing a figure in the window, and thus it seemed doubtful Brennan
could have positively identified a man in the partially opened 6th
floor window, 120 feet away.’
David Von Pein
>>> "Keep on apologizing for Brennan, David, you need him after all." <<<
No I don't. The popcorn trail Oswald left us is more than enough to
convict him (even without Brennan). All reasonable (non-kooks) know
that full well, of course.
>>> "You are right, of course, Brennan did claim his eyesight was fine on Nov 22, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't take his word for it." <<<
Naturally. That's because you, "mnhay27", have all the earmarks of
being one of those silly "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists.
And all idiots who take up residence on "ABO Avenue" are going to
forever scoff at ANYONE and ANYTHING that might lead toward the guilt
of Saint/Pope Oswald.
In short -- Different day; Same CT stupidity.
Walt
Gil....Yer full of shit... Brennan both told the truth and lied....
he told the truth initially, until the authorities scared him into
going along with their program. Don't you have the ability to see
through the Warren Commission's bullshit? It's not all that difficult
to see through the bullshit...You just have to READ.
Gil Jesus
Anyone who has seen photos of that window partially opened can tell
that a shooter couldn't possibly have aimed and fired that rifle and
hit his targets from a standing position.
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
Brennan saw a man sitting on the window PRIOR to the arrival of the
motorcade.
THAT'S the man he described as the shooter. ( 3 H 144 )
He ADMITTED that he never saw the weapon being fired ( 3 H 154 ) and
further proof of that is because HE SAID THAT THE SHOOTER WAS STANDING
and it was IMPOSSIBLE for a shooter to aim and fire that rifle through
a partially opened window from a standing position.
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
Also, Brennan said that "at the time he was firing the gun" he could
see the shooter "possibly from the belt up " ( 3 H 144 ).
How could he have seen only the top half of the shooter ?
He couldn't.
He ASSUMED that the man sitting on the window was the shooter and he
ASSUMED the shooter was standing.
Brennan testified that he hadn't seen the shooter in the act ( 3 H
154 ) and he KNEW that the guy sitting on the window wasn't Oswald
when he saw Oswald on TV and THAT'S when he got scared.
Oswald and the man Brennan saw on the sixth floor weren't even dressed
the same.
( 3 H 161 )
Brennan's identification of Oswald after his death is bogus as is much
( but not all ) of his story.
Oswald's death allowed Brennan to identify him as the man he saw and
relieved his fear of reprisal to himself or his family from the at-
large killer he originally saw.
Gary Combs
gc
Even Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission was skeptical: ‘In staging a
reconstruction on March 20, 1964, Ball found that Brennan had trouble
seeing a figure in the window, and thus it seemed doubtful Brennan
could have positively identified a man in the partially opened 6th
floor window, 120 feet away.’
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4a89b9c9-7271-4b2c...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Gil Jesus
> IMO, this one makes the most sense.
>
> gc
>
> Even Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission was skeptical: ‘In staging a
> reconstruction on March 20, 1964, Ball found that Brennan had trouble
> seeing a figure in the window, and thus it seemed doubtful Brennan
> could have positively identified a man in the partially opened 6th
> floor window, 120 feet away.’
Source:
The Assassination Chronicles: Inquest, Counterplot and Legend, Edward
Jay Epstein, pg. 143 )
Epstein goes on to say that Ball was skeptical about Brennan's
credibility for the following reasons:
1. As mentioned above, Brennan had difficulty seeing a figure in the
window.
2. Brennan's identification was not based on prominent points in the
assassin's clothes or dimensions.
3. Brennan said the shooter was standing while firing the rifle but
CONCLUSIVE evidence showed that the assassin fired from a kneeling or
sitting position.
http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
As far as Ball was concerned, the fact that Brennan LIED at the police
lineup ( about what he saw ) reflected on his general credibility.
( Epstein, pgs. 143-144 )
The Warren Commission, in an attempt to save the credibility of its
"witness", explained that he was merely mistaken about the shooter
firing while standing:
"Although Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots, most probably he was either sitting or
kneeling. The half-open window, the arrangement of the boxes, and the
angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position. It is
understandable, however, for Brennan to have believed that the man
with the rifle was standing.
Since the window ledges in the Depository Building are lower than in
most buildings, a person squatting or kneeling exposes more of his
body than would normally be the case.
(???????)
From the street, this creates the impression that the person is
standing. Brennan could have seen enough of the body of a kneeling or
squatting person to estimate his height."
(WCR 144-145 )
Of course, this is BS. Not only does kneeling on the upper floor of a
building expose LESS of the body to a viewer on the street below, by
doing so, it makes it MORE difficult to estimate the kneeler's height.
So Brennan never saw anyone firing while standing, the WC knew it and
they tried to "explain" his LIE by saying he made an "honest mistake".
robc...@netscape.com
Many experienced officers, including Fritz - who had an investment in
finding LHO guilty, have said NO one can accurately judge height and
weight from over 100 feet and six stories up and I would agree with
this just based on common sense.
Furthermore, one of the films (maybe Nix) shows Brennan at the moment
he claims he was looking up and he was NOT looking up!
> Photos taken seconds after the shooting show the window was raised
> less than halfway, suggesting the shooter would have had to kneel.’
>
> ( Trask, Pictures of the Pain pgs. 448 - 449 )
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
>
> Even Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission was skeptical: ‘In staging a
> reconstruction on March 20, 1964, Ball found that Brennan had trouble
> seeing a figure in the window, and thus it seemed doubtful Brennan
> could have positively identified a man in the partially opened 6th
> floor window, 120 feet away.’- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
Show us how he told the truth Walt. I have asked many LNers to show
me the proof he gave a description by showing us which officer took
it, but to this day NONE have furnished this information. Why?
Because the WC FAILED to find out who Brennan allegedly gave a
description to. The true, cold hard fact is there is NO proof anyone
furnished the description that went out at 12:45 PM (CST). My guess
would be this was furnished by military intelligence who had a very
active file on LHO at that time.
This is the same description by the way the DPD would use to arrest
LHO for the JDT murder, NOT the JFK murder!
Brennan said he gave the description to Sorrels, but Sorrels was at
Parkland at the time Brennan gave and when he came back to the scene
of the crime around 12:55 PM (I am using memory so if I'm off a bit I
apologize) he went in the BACK entrance of the TSBD so he would NOT
have run into Brennan.
Walt
I've got no time for stupid brainless bastards like you..... If you
can't read Brennan's affidavit which he wrote immediately after the
shooting and see that Brennan was telling the truth then your
hopeless. Brennan DESCRIBED a man who was NOT Oswald, He DESCRIBED a
window that the sniper was firing from that was NOT the east end
window, and he DESCRIBED a rifle that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano.
Now go someplace where you can learn to READ.
I have asked many LNers to show
> me the proof he gave a description by showing us which officer took
> it, but to this day NONE have furnished this information. Why?
> Because the WC FAILED to find out who Brennan allegedly gave a
> description to. The true, cold hard fact is there is NO proof anyone
> furnished the description that went out at 12:45 PM (CST). My guess
> would be this was furnished by military intelligence who had a very
> active file on LHO at that time.
>
> This is the same description by the way the DPD would use to arrest
> LHO for the JDT murder, NOT the JFK murder!
>
> Brennan said he gave the description to Sorrels, but Sorrels was at
> Parkland at the time Brennan gave and when he came back to the scene
> of the crime around 12:55 PM (I am using memory so if I'm off a bit I
> apologize) he went in the BACK entrance of the TSBD so he would NOT
> have run into Brennan.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Guess?? You don't need to guess ya dumb bastard.... READ what
actually happened.
Brennan went to the cop immediately after the shooting and told him
that he'd seen a man fire a rifle from the sixth floor window of the
TSBD. He was video taped talking to the cops and giving them the
description of the man he'd seen. Several other witnesses saw and
heard Brennan giving the information to the cops. Are you ever going
to get your head out of your ass and learn to THINK?
>
> This is the same description by the way the DPD would use to arrest
> LHO for the JDT murder, NOT the JFK murder!
>
> Brennan said he gave the description to Sorrels, but Sorrels was at
> Parkland at the time Brennan gave and when he came back to the scene
> of the crime around 12:55 PM (I am using memory so if I'm off a bit I
> apologize) he went in the BACK entrance of the TSBD so he would NOT
> have run into Brennan.- Hide quoted text -
Gil Jesus
The one thing you'll never get from Walt is a citation.
You'll get insults.
You'll get his interpretation.
You'll get speculation.
But you'll never ever get a citation.
He once posted:
"Once a sucker with a ( sic ) ego that won't allow them to admit
they've been a sucker buys into something...... they won't listen to
anything that conflicts with what they KNOW."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/460bdb7304055656
That pretty much sums up Walt.
He comes in here ALWAYS looking for a fight.
It's not worth arguing with him. You'd be better served to killfilter
him than to get into a childish insult war with him.
"The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all, is the
fool who'll argue with him".
Just some advice.
mnhay27
> No I don't. The popcorn trail Oswald left us is more than enough to
> convict him (even without Brennan). All reasonable (non-kooks) know
> that full well, of course.
Agreed, there's no doubt in my mind that Oswald would have been
convicted. That doesn't make him guilty though, does it?
> Naturally. That's because you, "mnhay27", have all the earmarks of
> being one of those silly "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists.
No, that's because, regardless of what you want to believe, Brennan
was a terrible witness and was himself guilty of perjury. David, you
are no doubt more knowledgable than most of the LN sheep on this forum
but you make the same silly assumptions about people without asking. I
am not a silly "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorist. On the
contrary I believe Oswald was guilty...of something. Of being the
sixth floor gunman? Possibly but not probably.
>
> And all idiots who take up residence on "ABO Avenue" are going to
> forever scoff at ANYONE and ANYTHING that might lead toward the guilt
> of Saint/Pope Oswald.
I can't speak for anyone else but if I saw concrete evidence that
proved to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was the sixth floor
gunman I'd be more than happy to say so. Until then I'll continue to
afford him his right of a presumption of innocence. And I'll continue
to place all wintnesses under the same level of scrutiny - whatever
"side" the speak for.
>
> In short -- Different day; Same CT stupidity.
In short -- different day, same old LN avoid the evidence you can't
answer and hurl insults instead B.S.
robc...@netscape.com
I wouldn't have expected any different answer than this. This is why
I compare you to the LNers as they last out like this two INSTEAD of
just explaining their reasoning.
>If you
> can't read Brennan's affidavit which he wrote immediately after the
> shooting and see that Brennan was telling the truth then your
> hopeless.
See, that is the problem, I HAVE read the affadavit and all his
comments and I know he was full of crap. Oh I agree with the notion
he did NOT see LHO, but everything else he said is out the window as
he was shown to be a liar like all the other WC witnesses.
YOU are one of the few CTers I have ever met who put so much emphasis
on Brennan due to the simple FACT there are sooooo many other better
witnesses to show what really happened.
> Brennan DESCRIBED a man who was NOT Oswald, He DESCRIBED a
> window that the sniper was firing from that was NOT the east end
> window, and he DESCRIBED a rifle that was NOT a Mannlicher Carcano.
> Now go someplace where you can learn to READ.
Yes, and he did NOT ID LHO either until after he was dead, and I think
Gil said these things but you ATTACKED him anyway. How come?
> I have asked many LNers to show
>
>
>
> > me the proof he gave a description by showing us which officer took
> > it, but to this day NONE have furnished this information. Why?
> > Because the WC FAILED to find out who Brennan allegedly gave a
> > description to. The true, cold hard fact is there is NO proof anyone
> > furnished the description that went out at 12:45 PM (CST). My guess
> > would be this was furnished by military intelligence who had a very
> > active file on LHO at that time.
>
> > This is the same description by the way the DPD would use to arrest
> > LHO for the JDT murder, NOT the JFK murder!
>
> > Brennan said he gave the description to Sorrels, but Sorrels was at
> > Parkland at the time Brennan gave and when he came back to the scene
> > of the crime around 12:55 PM (I am using memory so if I'm off a bit I
> > apologize) he went in the BACK entrance of the TSBD so he would NOT
> > have run into Brennan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
Walt, you sound just like the LNers on here. Personal attack anyone
who does not agree with you.
> Brennan went to the cop immediately after the shooting and told him
> that he'd seen a man fire a rifle from the sixth floor window of the
> TSBD.
If you say so, but how about giving us the name of the cop then???
> He was video taped talking to the cops and giving them the
> description of the man he'd seen.
LOL!! Him being on video (actually film in 1963) does NOT prove what
he said! He could have been discussing the weather for all you know!
Can you read lips Walt? Give me the name of the cop(s) then that took
this description.
> Several other witnesses saw and
> heard Brennan giving the information to the cops.
Name them for us then (witnesses and cops). Brennan lied and claimed
he was the ONLY one who saw this later on when at the time he
mentioned another witness, so he lied yet again before the WC.
> Are you ever going
> to get your head out of your ass and learn to THINK?
LOL!! Are you ever going to provide cites or information with your
claims??? Why did YOU NOT list the cop(s)'s name(s) IF you know that
he gave a description for sure????
> > This is the same description by the way the DPD would use to arrest
> > LHO for the JDT murder, NOT the JFK murder!
>
> > Brennan said he gave the description to Sorrels, but Sorrels was at
> > Parkland at the time Brennan gave and when he came back to the scene
> > of the crime around 12:55 PM (I am using memory so if I'm off a bit I
> > apologize) he went in the BACK entrance of the TSBD so he would NOT
> > have run into Brennan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> You really need to grow up and act your age, Von Pein.
>
> Anyone who has seen photos of that window partially opened can tell
> that a shooter couldn't possibly have aimed and fired that rifle and
> hit his targets from a standing position.
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
>
> Brennan saw a man sitting on the window PRIOR to the arrival of the
> motorcade.
That's correct!
>
> THAT'S the man he described as the shooter. ( 3 H 144 )
That's correct, but the man had moved to the WEST end wide open window
when Brennan saw him STANDING and aiming the rifle out of the window.
>
> He ADMITTED that he never saw the weapon being fired ( 3 H 154 ) and
> further proof of that is because HE SAID THAT THE SHOOTER WAS STANDING
> and it was IMPOSSIBLE for a shooter to aim and fire that rifle through
> a partially opened window from a standing position.
That's correct
>
> http://i39.tinypic.com/23tp0nr.jpg
>
> Also, Brennan said that "at the time he was firing the gun" he could
> see the shooter "possibly from the belt up " ( 3 H 144 ).
That's correct
>
> How could he have seen only the top half of the shooter ?
>
> He couldn't.
YES HE DID....He saw ALL OF THE UPPER HALF OF THE MAN'S BODY, because
the man was now behind the wide open WEST end window.
>
> He ASSUMED that the man sitting on the window was the shooter and he
> ASSUMED the shooter was standing.
He assumed nothing of the kind.... He DESCRIBED the wide open window
and the action of the STANDING man stepping back and putting the rifle
down to his side.
>
> Brennan testified that he hadn't seen the shooter in the act ( 3 H
> 154 ) and he KNEW that the guy sitting on the window wasn't Oswald
> when he saw Oswald on TV and THAT'S when he got scared.
Put yourself in Howard Brennan's position.....
You've seen a man aim a rifle from the sixth floor window, you saw the
man in bright sunshine and you know what he looks like. The police
take you to the police station to see if you can identify a man in a
line up. The man you saw is not in that line up, but it's obvious to
you that the cops have selected Oswald as the culprit and they want
you to identify him as the shooter, but you refuse. Then about 40
hours later you see Oswald being murdered on live television while
surrounded by the very cops who had tried to get you to put the finger
on Oswald on Friday evening.
If you've got any brains at all you realize that you've just witnessed
a powerful message.... The cops are in control and you'd better go
along with their program or you could suffer a fate similar to Oswald.
You're already on record as the prime witness who has been recorded
while giving a description of the man and the gun that was NOT Oswald
nor a Mannlicher Carcano..... Are you going to stick with your
original truth now that Oswald's dead, or are you going to play ball
with the authorities???
robc...@netscape.com
I know this, but I like to show how he will NOT back up his claims
(which seem to support the WC's claims most of the time -- or at least
keeps the possibility of their claims alive) for the fun of it.
Besides, you were 100% right and he was calling you very nasty things,
so I felt compelled to jump in. I am NOT gettting into long
conversations with Walt anymore as it is a waste of time, but showing
how he is lying is NEVER a waste of time.
Thanks for the advice.
Gil Jesus
>
> Besides, you were 100% right and he was calling you very nasty things,
> so I felt compelled to jump in. �I am NOT gettting into long
> conversations with Walt anymore as it is a waste of time, but showing
> how he is lying is NEVER a waste of time.
>
> Thanks for the advice.-
Thanks for the help. If you haven't noticed yet, when you debate with
someone and their tank is on "empty" most of the time, they'll resort
to insults.
The funny thing is that Walt and I agree that Oswald wasn't the
shooter on the sixth floor. We agree that Brennan saw SOMEONE, because
his description of a "white man" is similar to the description of
others who saw the same man on the sixth floor.
Where we DON'T agree is that Brennan saw someone shooting while
standing. The physical evidence, the photos of the partially opened
windows at the time of the shooting make it impossible for the shooter
to be aiming and firing the rifle while standing.
Everyone whose ever written anything about Brennan has pointed this
impossibility out as evidence that Brennan was unreliable.
Everyone, that is, except Walt.
Walt chooses to ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't jive
with his own speculative ideas of what actually occured.
The "nasty things" he was calling me really don't phase me anymore.
Most of what he posts is unsubstantiated and one of the main
differences between he and I is that I can back up what I say with
citations and he cannot.
Of course, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants to, but when he
presents his beliefs as FACTS, he makes his credibility no better than
a guy who quotes himself ( Von Pein ).
And we have a responsibility to call him on those.
Walt
> Rob:
>
> The one thing you'll never get from Walt is a citation.
>
> You'll get insults.
>
> You'll get his interpretation.
>
> You'll get speculation.
>
> But you'll never ever get a citation.
>
> He once posted:
>
> "Once a sucker with a ( sic ) ego that won't allow them to admit
> they've been a sucker buys into something...... they won't listen to
> anything that conflicts with what they KNOW."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/460bdb7304055656
>
> That pretty much sums up Walt.
>
> He comes in here ALWAYS looking for a fight.
No I'm not looking for a fight.... I'm looking for you hopeless
assholes to start THINKING
Walt
> On Apr 15, 8:22 am, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Besides, you were 100% right and he was calling you very nasty things,
> > so I felt compelled to jump in. I am NOT gettting into long
> > conversations with Walt anymore as it is a waste of time, but showing
> > how he is lying is NEVER a waste of time.
>
> > Thanks for the advice.-
>
> Thanks for the help. If you haven't noticed yet, when you debate with
> someone and their tank is on "empty" most of the time, they'll resort
> to insults.
>
> The funny thing is that Walt and I agree that Oswald wasn't the
> shooter on the sixth floor. We agree that Brennan saw SOMEONE, because
> his description of a "white man" is similar to the description of
> others who saw the same man on the sixth floor.
>
> Where we DON'T agree is that Brennan saw someone shooting while
> standing. The physical evidence, the photos of the partially opened
> windows at the time of the shooting make it impossible for the shooter
> to be aiming and firing the rifle while standing.
You've still got your head in your ass.....You can't seem to
understand that Brennan first saw the sniper in the EAST end window
BEFORE the motorcade arrived ( as did several other witnesses) but
DURING the shooting he saw the same man behind the wiode open WEST end
window where he had moved to to get a better field of fire.
Walt
> On Apr 15, 8:22 am, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Besides, you were 100% right and he was calling you very nasty things,
> > so I felt compelled to jump in. I am NOT gettting into long
> > conversations with Walt anymore as it is a waste of time, but showing
> > how he is lying is NEVER a waste of time.
>
> > Thanks for the advice.-
>
> Thanks for the help. If you haven't noticed yet, when you debate with
> someone and their tank is on "empty" most of the time, they'll resort
> to insults.
>
> The funny thing is that Walt and I agree that Oswald wasn't the
> shooter on the sixth floor. We agree that Brennan saw SOMEONE, because
> his description of a "white man" is similar to the description of
> others who saw the same man on the sixth floor.
>
> Where we DON'T agree is that Brennan saw someone shooting while
> standing. The physical evidence, the photos of the partially opened
> windows at the time of the shooting make it impossible for the shooter
> to be aiming and firing the rifle while standing.
>
> Everyone whose ever written anything about Brennan has pointed this
> impossibility out as evidence that Brennan was unreliable.
>
> Everyone, that is, except Walt.
Thank you...I'll accept the compliment of being able to use my God
given brain. If "everyone else" chooses to follow a lie like a bunch
of lemmings I can only try to make them see that they are being
suckers.
>
> Walt chooses to ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't jive
> with his own speculative ideas of what actually occured.
READ the statements.... They are NOT my words...They are the words of
Howard Brennan.
>
> The "nasty things" he was calling me really don't phase me anymore.
If you act like a dumbass...I'll call you a dumbass.
> Most of what he posts is unsubstantiated and one of the main
> differences between he and I is that I can back up what I say with
> citations and he cannot.
F Y
>
> Of course, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants to, but when he
> presents his beliefs as FACTS, he makes his credibility no better than
> a guy who quotes himself ( Von Pein ).
>
> And we have a responsibility to call him on those.
F Y
robc...@netscape.com
> On 15 Apr, 07:07, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rob:
>
> > The one thing you'll never get from Walt is a citation.
>
> > You'll get insults.
>
> > You'll get his interpretation.
>
> > You'll get speculation.
>
> > But you'll never ever get a citation.
>
> > He once posted:
>
> > "Once a sucker with a ( sic ) ego that won't allow them to admit
> > they've been a sucker buys into something...... they won't listen to
> > anything that conflicts with what they KNOW."
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/460bdb7304055656
>
> > That pretty much sums up Walt.
>
> > He comes in here ALWAYS looking for a fight.
>
> No I'm not looking for a fight.... I'm looking for you hopeless
> assholes to start THINKING
Unfortunately for you we do think (and read the evidence) and we DON'T
agree with your unsubtantiated claims!
> > It's not worth arguing with him. You'd be better served to killfilter
> > him than to get into a childish insult war with him.
>
> > "The only fool bigger than the fool who thinks he knows it all, is the
> > fool who'll argue with him".
>
> > Just some advice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
> On Apr 15, 8:22 am, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Besides, you were 100% right and he was calling you very nasty things,
> > so I felt compelled to jump in. I am NOT gettting into long
> > conversations with Walt anymore as it is a waste of time, but showing
> > how he is lying is NEVER a waste of time.
>
> > Thanks for the advice.-
>
> Thanks for the help. If you haven't noticed yet, when you debate with
> someone and their tank is on "empty" most of the time, they'll resort
> to insults.
>
> The funny thing is that Walt and I agree that Oswald wasn't the
> shooter on the sixth floor. We agree that Brennan saw SOMEONE, because
> his description of a "white man" is similar to the description of
> others who saw the same man on the sixth floor.
I agree with both of you that LHO was NOT the shooter, but the problem
is almost all of what Brennan said (or what the WC did to what he
said) is a lie so he is really worthless as a witness beyond the part
he COULD NOT ID LHO while LHO was alive. How can the WC claim he is
their main witness in terms of seeing LHO when he did NOT ID LHO?
Anything beyond that is a waste of time IMO. There is NO one who can
produce a name of a cop who took Brennan's alleged description and I
know this because researchers have tried to do what the WC failed to
do for 45 years and they have NEVER found anyone who said "I was the
guy who spoke with Brennan." Without this ID there is NO proof
Brennan gave the description that was broadcasted so quickly by the
DPD at 12:45 PM and it leads one to ask "IF it was NOT Brennan, then
who provided the description so fast?" ONLY conspiratorial answers
can be provided for that question.
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard do you believe that Chief Curry told the cop,...
"You get right out there and talk to those reporters and tell them
that you are the cop that was seen in the film talking to Howard
Brennan and DESCRIBED a sniper who was NOT Oswald, and he said the
sniper was using a hunting rifle." Is that what you believe
Dumbass??
Isn't it far more ;ikely that the cop was told to keep his mouth shut
about the DESCRIPTION of the sniper that Brennan had gave him just
minutes after the shooting?
And what difference does it make who the cop was??? It is a FACT
that Brennan gave a cop the DESCRIPTION ( that wasn't Oswald) and that
description was broadcast on the police radio at about 12:40.
Don't you have any ability to reason at all???
Without this ID there is NO proof
> Brennan gave the description that was broadcasted so quickly by the
> DPD at 12:45 PM and it leads one to ask "IF it was NOT Brennan, then
> who provided the description so fast?" ONLY conspiratorial answers
> can be provided for that question.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Where we DON'T agree is that Brennan saw someone shooting while
> > standing. The physical evidence, the photos of the partially opened
> > windows at the time of the shooting make it impossible for the shooter
> > to be aiming and firing the rifle while standing.
>
> > Everyone whose ever written anything about Brennan has pointed this
> > impossibility out as evidence that Brennan was unreliable.
>
> > Everyone, that is, except Walt.
>
> > Walt chooses to ignore the physical evidence because it doesn't jive
> > with his own speculative ideas of what actually occured.
>
> > The "nasty things" he was calling me really don't phase me anymore.
> > Most of what he posts is unsubstantiated and one of the main
> > differences between he and I is that I can back up what I say with
> > citations and he cannot.
>
> > Of course, he's entitled to believe whatever he wants to, but when he
> > presents his beliefs as FACTS, he makes his credibility no better than
> > a guy who quotes himself ( Von Pein ).
>
> > And we have a responsibility to call him on those.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
Why would the media have to be involved Walt?? Why couldn't they just
look at THE REPORT THE COP WOULD HAVE FILED??????????????? This had
NOTHING to do with what I believe, but rather to do with standard
crimes scene procedures.
It is STANDARD procedure to get a name of a witness (among other
things) when they are giving information regarding a crime, especially
a murder. To claim otherwise is just being dishonest.
> Isn't it far more ;ikely that the cop was told to keep his mouth shut
> about the DESCRIPTION of the sniper that Brennan had gave him just
> minutes after the shooting?
Why?? IT was supposed to MATCH the pre-desposed Patsy, so why would
they hide this information? YOU make NO sense as usual.
> And what difference does it make who the cop was??? It is a FACT
> that Brennan gave a cop the DESCRIPTION ( that wasn't Oswald) and that
> description was broadcast on the police radio at about 12:40.
LOL!! I don't want to get into a WC shill conversation with you
anymore, been there, done that, but ONLY a LNer would say "what
difference does it make who Brennan talked with" as it makes ALL THE
DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD for continuity and crime scene procedures.
> Don't you have any ability to reason at all???
Why would I use reason with YOU since you are incapable of using it
yourself??
The point is, ONLY LNers and WC apologists see NO need to track down
who Brennan allegedly gave this description to to VERIFY that he did
indeed give it. Real CTers are NOT afraid of this as the working
description did NOT match LHO at all and Brennan did NOT ID LHO at the
lineup BEFORE LHO's death.
Gil Jesus
> LOL!! I don't want to get into a WC shill conversation with you
> anymore, been there, done that, but ONLY a LNer would say "what
> difference does it make who Brennan talked with" as it makes ALL THE
> DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD for continuity and crime scene procedures.
Since that description was the basis for the radio transmission,
tracing that description from the witness to the broadcast would be
essential during a murder trial.
It would be one way for the prosecution to prove that the description
wasn't contrived and that the defendant wasn't framed.
They would trace the description from the witness to the officer to
the broadcast to the defendant's arrest, thus showing a consistancy
between the description of the fleeing gunman and the suspect under
arrest.
"What difference does it make who Brennan talked to" sounds like
something I'd expect to hear from Von pein or Bud.
Walt
FY..... Idiot
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard.... Please explain why it makes any difference
which cop Brennan talked to...
It is a FACT that he talked to a cop within minutes of the shooting.
He told that cop what he'd seen and gave a description of the sixth
floor sniper to that cop. Based on Brennan's description of the sniper
a description of the suspect was broadcast at about 12:40. That
description did NOT fit Oswald nor did it mention a military rifle.
The description broadcast on the police radio was:.....
"Attention all squads,.... the suspect in the shooting at Elm and
Houston is reported to be an unknown white male approximately thirty,
slender build, height... five feet six, weight ...one hundred sixth
five pounds, reported to be armed with a thirty caliber rifle, no
further description or information at this time."
We know that the description came from Howard Brennan.... Who the hell
cares who he gave the description to??
Oswald was not thirty years old....he didn't weigh 165 pounds...he
wasn't 5 ' 6" tall, and the rifle he ordered from Klein's was NOT a
thirty caliber rifle.
While it's true that Brennan may have been unable to accurately
estimate the sniper's age or height, he certainly was able to see the
color of the snipers clothes... which he said was a LIGHT COLORED
shirt and trousers which were a shade lighter than his shirt. He also
said the sniper was firing a HUNTING rifle possibly a 30-30
Winchester.
Oswald was wearing a DARK colored reddish brown shirt and DARK gray
trousers at the time and the rifle associated with Oswald was a
MILITARY 6.5mm Italian Mannlicher Carcano, which bears little
resemblance to a 30-30 Winchester.
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:8bda925b-5304-42e5...@a7g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
The reason WHY it makes a difference WHO the source of the shooter's
description given to yhr DPD.
The cop who took the call from that DPD officer WITH the witness Asked for a
clothing description.
The officer replied that the witness had NO clothing description ! ! !
THAT "Eliminates Brennan".
robc...@netscape.com
> On 15 Apr, 20:43, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 3:26 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> > > LOL!! I don't want to get into a WC shill conversation with you
> > > anymore, been there, done that, but ONLY a LNer would say "what
> > > difference does it make who Brennan talked with" as it makes ALL THE
> > > DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD for continuity and crime scene procedures.
>
> > Since that description was the basis for the radio transmission,
> > tracing that description from the witness to the broadcast would be
> > essential during a murder trial.
>
> > It would be one way for the prosecution to prove that the description
> > wasn't contrived and that the defendant wasn't framed.
>
> > They would trace the description from the witness to the officer to
> > the broadcast to the defendant's arrest, thus showing a consistancy
> > between the description of the fleeing gunman and the suspect under
> > arrest.
>
> > "What difference does it make who Brennan talked to" sounds like
> > something I'd expect to hear from Von pein or Bud.
>
> Dear Stupid Bastard.... Please explain why it makes any difference
> which cop Brennan talked to...
I don't mean to jump in on Gil's space here, but since Walty has
called me the same thing I will reply here first.
Because Walt in a murder case NO is allowed to give vital information
regarding the crime WITHOUT giving their name and other pertinent
information. Thus, NO instance of NO officer being able to be found
to say I talked with "x" witness should ever occur! Plus, this vital
transference of information (if it is deemed to be so) should be
INCLUDED in a report filed by said officer.
The FACT you and LNers CANNOT tell us who Brennan spoke with means you
are sunk as there is NO way to VERIFY that he ever passed on the
information the DPD transmitted at 12:45 PM.
> It is a FACT that he talked to a cop within minutes of the shooting.
Really?? IF it is a FACT then you should be able to PROVE he did, so I
ask yet again, who did he speak with?
> He told that cop what he'd seen and gave a description of the sixth
> floor sniper to that cop. Based on Brennan's description of the sniper
> a description of the suspect was broadcast at about 12:40. That
> description did NOT fit Oswald nor did it mention a military rifle.
> The description broadcast on the police radio was:.....
OF course it did NOT but that is NOT the point here, but whether he
ever gave a description to the police in the first place, OR if he was
used to cover up the FACT the description came from another source
(like military intelligence) is the point here.
> "Attention all squads,.... the suspect in the shooting at Elm and
> Houston is reported to be an unknown white male approximately thirty,
> slender build, height... five feet six, weight ...one hundred sixth
> five pounds, reported to be armed with a thirty caliber rifle, no
> further description or information at this time."
>
> We know that the description came from Howard Brennan.... Who the hell
> cares who he gave the description to??
LOL!! YOU have FAILED to prove it came from Brennan but you keep
claiming it did. YOU then say "who cares" to the most vital piece in
the equasion which is who did he give it to so it could be broadcasted
in the first place. This is KEY to the whole point, but you have NO
interest in this part. Typical response from DVP and Bud, but I guess
Walt thinks like they do as well.
> Oswald was not thirty years old....he didn't weigh 165 pounds...he
> wasn't 5 ' 6" tall, and the rifle he ordered from Klein's was NOT a
> thirty caliber rifle.
YOU have FAILED on numerous occassions to prove LHO ever ordered a
rifle from Klein's, but you have certainly FAILED to show he ever
ordered a 40" Carcano. This is why it is important to establish where
this information came from, and based on the available evidence it did
NOT come from Brennan.
> While it's true that Brennan may have been unable to accurately
> estimate the sniper's age or height, he certainly was able to see the
> color of the snipers clothes... which he said was a LIGHT COLORED
> shirt and trousers which were a shade lighter than his shirt. He also
> said the sniper was firing a HUNTING rifle possibly a 30-30
> Winchester.
YOU are assuming a lot here with NO evidence to support it. Typical
Walt behavior.
> Oswald was wearing a DARK colored reddish brown shirt and DARK gray
> trousers at the time and the rifle associated with Oswald was a
> MILITARY 6.5mm Italian Mannlicher Carcano, which bears little
> resemblance to a 30-30 Winchester.
Of course the description did NOT match LHO in anyway that is why this
is soooo important because the DPD supposedly used this horrible
description to apprehend LHO within in an hour and a half with a
description that did NOT match the suspect in the slightest!! How does
that happen?
Do you care to explain this for us?
This is why the origin of that description is vital to this case,
since it was used supposedly sooo effectively while NOT matching the
suspect in the least.
Walt
Brennan first went to Patrolman W.E.Barnett who turned him over to
Inspector Herbert Sawyer....
Don't yoy even know the basics of the case?
> suspect in the least.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> BOTTOM POST;
>
> "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote in message
Yer full of shit..... Simply because there was no clothing description
in the broadcast doesn't eliminate Howard Brennan as the source....
hell's bells the explanation for no clothing description may be as
simple as the cop was really harried at the time and simply neglected
the clothing description. Yer just another Stupid Bastard whose brain
doesn't function very well.
tomnln
Yer full of shit..... Simply because there was no clothing description
in the broadcast doesn't eliminate Howard Brennan as the source....
hell's bells the explanation for no clothing description may be as
simple as the cop was really harried at the time and simply neglected
the clothing description. Yer just another Stupid Bastard whose brain
doesn't function very well.
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description ?" took the info from Brennan
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
From Volume VI page 321
THAT's why it matters WHO took the info from Brennan.
Don't you know any of the Basic Facts?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Brennan first went to Patrolman W.E.Barnett who turned him over to
Inspector Herbert Sawyer....
Don't yoy even know the basics of the case?
Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out?
Mr. SAWYER. That was after.
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description ?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
For additional Lies to benefit the WCR.
<robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:3516afc6-d064-442f...@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Wally World "Chokes" on his own foot AGAIN ! ! !
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/wally_world.htm
>
> For additional Lies to benefit the WCR.
>
I also failed to prove that if you wet your pants you'll be
wet........ Most intelligent people know facts are facts, only Stupid
Bastards need proof that if you piss in your pants you'll be wet and
stinky ......IDIOT!
> suspect in the least.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
I also failed to prove that if you wet your pants you'll be
wet........ Most intelligent people know facts are facts, only Stupid
Bastards need proof that if you piss in your pants you'll be wet and
stinky ......IDIOT!
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description ?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:AbNFl.45628$e_5....@newsfe03.iad...
Walt
> HAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> Oh Wally ! ! ! !
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in messagenews:AbNFl.45628$e_5....@newsfe03.iad...
>
> Wally World wrote;
>
> Yer full of shit..... Simply because there was no clothing description
> in the broadcast doesn't eliminate Howard Brennan as the source....
> hell's bells the explanation for no clothing description may be as
> simple as the cop was really harried at the time and simply neglected
> the clothing description. Yer just another Stupid Bastard whose brain
> doesn't function very well.
>
> I write;
>
> The dispatcher asked Sawyer for a clothing description.
SO WHAT??.... The harried Sawyer may not neglected to get the
clothing description, or in the swirling confusion of the moment may
have forgotten what brennan had told him so he just said " Current
witness can't remember that"
We KNOW that Howard Brennan DID IN FACT remember how the sniper was
dressed, and ALL ( repeat) ALL other winesses who saw a man on the
sixth floor remembered the clothing the man was wearing. ( It was NOT
a DARK colored reddish brown shirt and DARK gray trousers, like Oswald
was wearing at the time)
Since we KNOW that ALL of the witnesses remembered the mans clothing
then it's obvious that Sawyer evaded the clothing issue by saying "
Current witness can't remember that".
>
> Sawyer replied>>>
>
> Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
>
> Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
>
> Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
>
> Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
>
> Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description ?" took the info from Brennan
>
> Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
>
> Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
>
> Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
>
> Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
>
> From Volume VI page 321
>
> THAT's why it matters WHO took the info from Brennan.
>
> Don't you know any of the Basic Facts?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
robc...@netscape.com
I know this is what we have been told, but where is the evidence for
this claim? Remember, Brennan said he spoke with Forrest Sorrels
first.
> Don't yoy even know the basics of the case?
Don't you know Sawyer's broadcast had NO CLOTHING description???
Between 12:49 and 12:51 it was noted again in the log there was NO
CLOTHING description available.
Sawyer was asked who he spoke with:
Q. Did you know this person's name? (The person who gave him the
description he had broadcasted.)
Sawyer: I DO NOT.
Q. Do you know anything about him what he was wearing?
(NOTE: Brennan was wearing a construction's workers metal helmet at
the time and surely Sawyer or anyone else would have remembered this
later on.)
Sawyer: Except that he was -- I DON'T remember what he was wearing. I
remember he was a white man and he wasn't young and he wasn't old. He
was there. That is the only two things I can remember about him....
Q. Do you remember tall or short, or can't you remember anything about
him?
Sawyer: I can't remember that much about him. I was real hazy about
that...
Q. Inspector, do you remember anything else about this person who you
say gave you the primary description?
Sawyer: NO, I do NOT...
Q. Did you ever see him again?
Sawyer: Not to my knowledge.
(VI, p. 321-323; XXI p. 392-393; III, p. 143)
One would expect this kind of crappy description from a shocked
witness, NOT a police INSPECTOR who is trained to observe things in a
crisis.
We ALSO know that Brennan gave Sorrels a clothing description as
Sorrels testified to this, but this description Sawyer mentions
contains NO clothing description.
Don't you know the basics of this case??
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robc...@netscape.com
You're a liar as usual. NO surprise there!
> hell's bells the explanation for no clothing description may be as
> simple as the cop was really harried at the time and simply neglected
> the clothing description. Yer just another Stupid Bastard whose brain
> doesn't function very well.
YOU are talking about a police INSPECTOR (Sawyer), you do NOT make the
rank of Inspector in your first few years on the force, thus he should
NOT have been "harried" in the least.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Let me see if I understand you.... You claim that the Warren Report is
all lies and nothing the Warren Commission touched is above
question....Do I have that right? ....Then you present the testimony
of one of the DPD conspirators as evidence. You are solidifing your
title of....Stupid Bastard.
Walt
Dear Stupid Bastard....What kind of an idiot would believe the DPD??
They were in the front lines of the cover up.
robc...@netscape.com
As usual you HAVE NOTHING right!! The fact there was a description to
broadcast just 15 minutes after the shooting is vital, and the FACT
the WC did NOT learn where they came from is a KEY PIECE of evidence
showing us there was a conspiracy.
The WC LIED, something you do all the time, and CLAIMED the
description was provided by Howard Brennan, but then they FAILED to
prove this was the case. IT was quite simple to prove as well as ALL
officers are REQUIRED to get a name, telephone number and address for
any witness they speak with when canvassing a crime scene. But in
this case we are to believe NO officer ever recorded Brennan's info!
He compounded the lie by claiming he gave it to a man who was NO where
NEAR DP at 12:45 but was with the slain president at Parkland
instead!
Brennan was wearing a metallic construction helmet that stood out like
a sore thumb but NO one can remember this about him?????
The truth is the description obviously did NOT come from Brennan and
the ONLY other possibility OPENS the door to conspiracy as it had to
come from some place. As usual, Walt is NOT interested in ALLOWING
THE DOOR to conspiracy to open, despite his claims of being a CTer.
robc...@netscape.com
YOU must be asking yourself this as I am NOT the one claiming they
made official reports when they did NOT. Where is the report for the
conversation with Brennan PRIOR to 12:45 PM loudmouth? YOU, like the
LNers, keep claiming Brennan gave the description despite there being
NO record of it and the FACT THE OFFICIAL DESCRIPTION LACKED ANY
MENTION OF CLOTHING.
Nice try liar, but you are shown for what you are again.
tomnln
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:07bef78a-6c5c-4aca...@p11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
It Proves that Sawyer's witness was NOT Brennan.