The Gunman in White
Walt
before JFK's motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. The witnesses who were
on the street outside of the TSBD saw the man up there in the windows
of the sixth floor of the TSBD. All of the witnesses said the man
they saw was dressed in light colored clothing. The witnesses were
Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland, Ronald Fischer, and Bob Edwards.
There were also a couple of others whose names escape me.
ALL of the above witnesses said that the man they saw was dressed in
"LIGHT COLORED" clothes. Some of them described the shirt the man was
wearing as a light colored sport shirt with a collar. The shirt was
described as open at the neck and unbuttoned about halfway down. A
white T- shirt was seen beneath the light colored sport shirt. The
light colored, button front sport shirt was described by the witnesses
as "white", "dingy white", "light yellow", "khaki" and "light
blue" ..... Whatever the exact color was it's obvious that the shirt
was NOT the DARK reddish brown shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing that
day.
One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
with a long exposed metal barrel, and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
barrel. The Mannlicher Carcano found on the sixth floor did NOT have
an exposed metal barrel. The barrel of the MC was covered by the
wooden stock.
Arnold Rowland specifically said that he saw the man who was wearing
the light colored shirt had the hunting rifle with the scope about 3
to 5 feet behind the wide open window on the far west end of the sixth
floor. Brennan never said the man was behind that window but he
DESCRBED that window in his testimony before the Warren
Commission.
Rowland, Fischer, and Edwards only described the man's shirt, either
didn't see his trousers or didn't pay any attention to his trousers,
Brennan however DID notice the man's trousers, he said they appeared
to be a "little lighter in color" than the man's shirt. Oswald was
wearing DARK gray trousers at the time of the shooting.
Fischer and Edwards saw the man wearing the light colored sport shirt
"among the boxes behind the window at the EAST end of the building
BEFORE the motorcade arrived, if they saw a rifle in the man's hands
they never reported that. Howard Brennan also saw the man behind
that east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan said he saw
the man leave and return to the window a couple of times. Fisher and
Edwards saw the man in the EAST end window, and said he appeared to be
sitting on a box or something because they could only see the upper
portion ( head, shoulders and chest ) of the man. They said the window
was not fully open.
Howard Brennan, was about seventyfive feet closer to the gunman when
he was behind the WEST end window than Arnold Rowland, described the
physical characteristics of the man wearing the light colored
clothing. Brennan said the gunman appeared to be in his early
thirties, and he weighed about 165 to 175 pounds. Oswald had just
celebrated his 24th birthday and his booking sheet lists his weight as
140 pounds.
It's should be obvious to any openminded person that the White
clothing clad gunman was NOT Lee Oswald.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Todd
Do you allow for the possibility, howvere remote that you might think
it is, that it was Oswald they saw and he had taken off his long
sleeved shirt and was clad only in his t-shirt, an old dingy one at
that, with a worn and stretched collar?
Todd
Todd
Walt
Todd, apparently you haven't been following the Jack Dougherty@ 12:30
thread, because that idea has been considered and destroyed. It's
fairly easy to verify that the witnesses who saw the man wearing the
light colored shirt were DESCRIBING a light colored sport shirt with a
button front and a collar, NOT a T-shirt. I'm not going to post those
testimonies again, you can check them for yourself..... just read
through the J.D. @12:30 thread.
Walt
>
> Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt,
"Destroyed"?
Are you smoking crack?
You're not telling everyone the whole story, are you?
Fischer told the Warren Commission the following:
"And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been
a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I
couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-
sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color."
He clearly said it could have been a T-shirt.
ONLY Rowland, whose credibilty is up for grabs, said it was a open
neck shirt with a t-shirt underneath.
Todd
Edwards and Fishcer all described it as
>
>
>
>
>
> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Don't be a smartass....unless you want treatment in kind
>
> You're not telling everyone the whole story, are you?
Do you know something I've ommitted?
>
> Fischer told the Warren Commission the following:
>
> "And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been
> a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I
> couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-
> sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color."
>
> He clearly said it could have been a T-shirt.
One witness.... who said it "COULD" have been a T-shirt. We can know
what he wasn't sure of, by reading what the other witnesses said.
>
> ONLY Rowland, whose credibilty is up for grabs, said it was a open
> neck shirt with a t-shirt underneath.
Why is Rowland's credibility "up for grabs"..... Is it because it
destoys the imagined scenario that Oswald fired from the East end
window?
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Since you claimed the idea that Oswald was weraing only a T-shirt was
"destroyed", and since your own witness Fischer said it could have
been a T-shirt, let me say it again - Are you smoking crack?
YOUR OWN WITNESS WAID HE COULD HAVE BEEN WEARING A T-SHIRT!
DO YOU GET IT?
>
>
>
> > You're not telling everyone the whole story, are you?
>
> Do you know something I've ommitted?
Yes. The fact that Fischer, your own witness, said the shirt he saw
the man wearing could have been a T-shirt.
Why did you omit this?
>
>
>
> > Fischer told the Warren Commission the following:
>
> > "And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been
> > a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probably white, I
> > couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-
> > sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color."
>
> > He clearly said it could have been a T-shirt.
>
> One witness.... who said it "COULD" have been a T-shirt. We can know
> what he wasn't sure of, by reading what the other witnesses said.
What "other witnesses" (emphasis on the plural)?
Edwards said nothing to contradict Fischer.
Nor did Brennan.
All you have is Rowland.
>
>
>
> > ONLY Rowland, whose credibilty is up for grabs, said it was a open
> > neck shirt with a t-shirt underneath.
>
> Why is Rowland's credibility "up for grabs"..... Is it because it
> destoys the imagined scenario that Oswald fired from the East end
> window?
No, it's because it was shown he has a tendency to exagerate...like
you.
RICLAND
> On 2 Apr, 09:09, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 2, 10:04 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
Keep up the good work, Walt.
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman
"We probably will never learn the truth about this case."
--Earl Warren, 1964
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
Todd W. Vaughan
> Walt wrote:
> > On 2 Apr, 09:09, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 2, 10:04 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> Keep up the good work, Walt.
What "good work" is that?
Is it not telling everyone that Fischer said the shirt he saw the man
wearing could have been a T-shirt?
aeffects
horrors upon horrors, Oswald fired from the west end of the 6th
floor... if that's the case, the Myers animation is fucked up which
means the Zapruder film is altered and the SBT is fraud..... talk
about a house of cards.....
Todd W. Vaughan
How Ridiculous, David.
There's no evidence, none what-so-ever, that anyone fired a weapon
from the west end 6th floor windows of the TSBD.
You're not very familiar with the real details of the case and the
evidence, are you?
Stick to post production, turtle, this case is too fast for you.
Walt
You stupid son-of- a- bitch..... Your point has already been
addressed, but I'll address it again so you can have a 3rd grader read
it and tell you what it means.
Ronald Fischer testified:..... "And he had--he had on an open-neck
shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was
light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long
sleeves or whether it was a short- sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck
and light in color."
"could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt"
You'll notice that Fisher's FIRST choice is a SPORT SHIRT.... but he
allowed that it COULD have been a T-shirt.
"it was open-neck and light in color." ....
Have you ever seen a CLOSED NECK shirt, you stupid asshole?
How the hell would a man don a CLOSED NECK shirt. When a person uses
the term "open necked shirt" they are usually referring to a sport
shirt that is not buttoned completely to the throat, or a shirt with
the top button not buttoned and no neck tie.
In my opinion that's what Fischer was referring to...... I know that
you'll probably come up with some assinine off the wall definition for
"an opened neck shirt", and quite frankly I hope you do.....I need a
good laugh today.
Walt
David Von Pein
The only good work Walt has done with respect to the JFK case is to
prove (beyond any and all doubt) Bud's longstanding point, which is
never more evident than when Walt posts ANYTHING about ANYTHING re.
this case. That point being:
"You kooks are the last people on the planet who should be looking
into this case." -- Bud (paraphrased quote)
Todd W. Vaughan
You'll "..address it again so you can have a 3rd grader read it and
tell you what it means."?
LOL!
If I really wanted 3rd grader need to do read it and tell me what it
means, why would you have to address it again if? What do you have to
do with the 3rd grader?
Answer. Nothing. You're just a poor communicator.
LOL!
>
> Ronald Fischer testified:..... "And he had--he had on an open-neck
> shirt, but it-uh--could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was
> light in color; probably white, I couldn't tell whether it had long
> sleeves or whether it was a short- sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck
> and light in color."
>
> "could have been a sport shirt or a T-shirt"
>
> You'll notice that Fisher's FIRST choice is a SPORT SHIRT.... but he
> allowed that it COULD have been a T-shirt.
He made no numbered choices, Walt. That you would suggest otherwise
betrays your agenda.
He says it could have been either.
And, that's all I've ever said, Walt, that Fischer said it COULD HAVE
been a T-shirt.
>
> "it was open-neck and light in color." ....
Yep.
>
> Have you ever seen a CLOSED NECK shirt, you stupid asshole?
In this context (open neck versus closed neck), certainly.
In this context (open neck versus closed neck), a t-shirt is a closed
neck shirt, you stupid asshole.
In this context (open neck versus closed neck), a sweatshirt is a
closed neck shirt, you stupid asshole.
In this context (open neck versus closed neck), a Football jersey is a
closed neck shirt, you stupid asshole.
I could go on, but why bother, you stupid asshole.
> How the hell would a man don a CLOSED NECK shirt.
In this context (open neck versus closed neck), the man would pull it
over their head, you stupid asshole.
Millions of men do this everyday, you stupid asshole.
> When a person uses
> the term "open necked shirt" they are usually referring to a sport
> shirt that is not buttoned completely to the throat, or a shirt with
> the top button not buttoned and no neck tie.
Or a t-shirt with a stretched out collar, viewed obstructedly from
over a hundred feet away?
>
> In my opinion that's what Fischer was referring to...... I know that
> you'll probably come up with some assinine off the wall definition for
> "an opened neck shirt", and quite frankly I hope you do.....I need a
> good laugh today.
READ MY WORDS, WALTER.
FISCHER SAID IT COULD HAVE BEEN A T-SHIRT.
Let's do this a different way.
Walt, yes or no question. Did Fishcer say the man could have been
wearing a T-shirt?
Todd
Walt
Thank You Dave.....now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!
The FACT that there was a white clothing clad gunman seen in the WEST
end window of the TSBD AT THE TIME of the shooting absolutely and
utterly destroys the Warren Commissions decree. The lyin bastards
recognize this fact and they are desperate to discredit it. In their
desperation they are grasping at straws, and attempting to change the
meaning of words ( shades of Slick Willie Clinton) they are reduced to
askin really stupid questions like ..."What is the definition of the
color WHITE"??
Howard Brennan not only described the color of the shirt of man in the
WEST end window he also said that the man was wearing trousers that
were a "LITTLE BIT LIGHTER " in color than the man's shirt. None of
the Lyin Bastards ever acknowledge that Brennan said the gunman was
wearing WHITE trousers. They think they can lie their way clear of
this whirlpool by ignoring Brennan's testimony where he said the
gunman was wearing trousers that were a shade lighter than his shirt,
and trying to shift attention to the shirt only. They know that
Oswald was dressed in a brown shirt and dark gray trousers that day
and they think they can avoid being sucked down into the whirlpool by
saying that Oswald removed his brown shirt and therefore the witnesses
saw him in his T-shirt. They also have to ignore their own misleading
"evidence" of the tuft of fibers found on the butt of the rifle. The
FBI claimed that they found fibers snagged from the shirt that Oswald
was wearing at the time of his arrest. Years ago they swayed the
public into believing Oswald was guilty of having the rifle against
his shoulder while wearing the shirt from which the fibers came. The
implication of that evidence was obvious, but now they have to lie
their way away from that because obviously if Oswald was wearing only
a T-shirt as they claim then the fibers couldn't have came from the
shirt he was wearing at the time.
I'm telling ya Dave... this is THE key to sinking the warren
Commissions lie.....and the Lner's know it.
Walt
Bud
<snicker> Walt neither considered it, or destroyed it. Walt has
already admitted to only considering information in the context of how
it helps Oz`s defense.
> It's
> fairly easy to verify that the witnesses who saw the man wearing the
> light colored shirt
Walt describes something that is absolutely impossible as being
"easy". A photograph of the man on the 6th floor might.
> were DESCRIBING a light colored sport shirt with a
> button front and a collar,
When Rowland saw these buttons from a couple hundred feet away, did
he say they were the kind of buttons held on by two stitches or four?
> NOT a T-shirt.
Even though a witness who was there specifically names a t-shirt as
a possibility, Walt has ruled it out.
> I'm not going to post those
> testimonies again, you can check them for yourself..... just read
> through the J.D. @12:30 thread.
Walt has done more to put Oz in the 6th floor of the TSBD in that
thread than any LN has ever done.
Bud
Walt
WOW! WOW! WOW!! This is SUPER!!! Todd Vaughn admits that Ronald
Fischer's description was of an OPEN necked SPORT SHIRT. Fisher said
the man's light colored shirt was "OPEN NECKED" Todd admitted that
the man was wearing
an open ncked shirt
Ronald Fischer......."It was open-neck and light in color"
Todd Vaughn...."Yep"
Here's Todd's DESCRIPTION of shirts that are NOT open necked......
"a t-shirt is a closed neck shirt, you stupid asshole."
"a sweatshirt is a closed neck shirt, you stupid asshole."
" Football jersey is a closed neck shirt, you stupid asshole."
So Todd is admitting that that a T-shirt isNOT an open neck shirt.
Thank you Todd for admitting that the gunman was NOT wearing only a T-
shirt, and also that you're a stupid asshole.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
Ridiculous? Hell, there's NO evidence Oswald was in the furthest east
6th floor window, NONE!
What'cha you gonna do when the well runs dry ~~ Bad Boy - bad boy ~~
Todd W. Vaughan
No witness places a gunman in the west end window at the time of the
shooting.
> The lyin bastards
> recognize this fact and they are desperate to discredit it. In their
> desperation they are grasping at straws, and attempting to change the
> meaning of words ( shades of Slick Willie Clinton) they are reduced to
> askin really stupid questions like ..."What is the definition of the
> color WHITE"??
I've never seen anyone here ask for the definition of white.
>
> Howard Brennan not only described the color of the shirt of man in the
> WEST end window he also said that the man was wearing trousers that
> were a "LITTLE BIT LIGHTER " in color than the man's shirt. None of
> the Lyin Bastards ever acknowledge that Brennan said the gunman was
> wearing WHITE trousers.
Sure he said that. But could he have been mistaken?
>They think they can lie their way clear of
> this whirlpool by ignoring Brennan's testimony where he said the
> gunman was wearing trousers that were a shade lighter than his shirt,
> and trying to shift attention to the shirt only. They know that
> Oswald was dressed in a brown shirt and dark gray trousers that day
Sans a photogrpah of Oswald at work that day, we really don't know to
a 100% certainty what he was wearing.
> and they think they can avoid being sucked down into the whirlpool by
> saying that Oswald removed his brown shirt and therefore the witnesses
> saw him in his T-shirt. They also have to ignore their own misleading
> "evidence" of the tuft of fibers found on the butt of the rifle. The
> FBI claimed that they found fibers snagged from the shirt that Oswald
> was wearing at the time of his arrest. Years ago they swayed the
> public into believing Oswald was guilty of having the rifle against
> his shoulder while wearing the shirt from which the fibers came. The
> implication of that evidence was obvious, but now they have to lie
> their way away from that because obviously if Oswald was wearing only
> a T-shirt as they claim then the fibers couldn't have came from the
> shirt he was wearing at the time.
Your thinking is so one-dimensional sometimes it's ridiculous. You
seeminlgy NEVER consider all the possibilities before you go spouting
of your next choice of drivel.
Certainly Oswald could have handled the rifle (during assembly or at
any other time)while wearing the shirt he was wearing at the time of
his arrest and deposited the fibers on the rifle. He just as easily
could have then taken the shirt off and been wearing a t-shirt before
and whil efiring. After killing Kennedy (and that's what he did, he
killed Kennedy) he could have put the shirt back on as he made his way
downstairs.
Todd
aeffects
shit Dudster, care to conjure up a Dale Myers animation covering the
"firing cone" from the 6th floor far WEST window? BTW, how do you get
oswald in ANY window on the 6th floor -- or, for that matter a
1st-2nd-3rd-4th-5th floor window?
Help us out here Dudster!
Todd W. Vaughan
What I said was "ridiculous" was the claim that someone fired a weapon
from the west end 6th floor windows of the TSBD.
You've offered nothing to counter what I said.
As for your claim that there exists no evidence Oswald was in the
furthest east
6th floor window", I was right. You don't know the details of this
case.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Several witnesses saw a man on the sixth floor of the TSBD shortly
> before JFK's motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. The witnesses who were
> on the street outside of the TSBD saw the man up there in the windows
> of the sixth floor of the TSBD. All of the witnesses said the man
> they saw was dressed in light colored clothing. The witnesses were
> Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland, Ronald Fischer, and Bob Edwards.
> There were also a couple of others whose names escape me.
>
> ALL of the above witnesses said that the man they saw was dressed in
> "LIGHT COLORED" clothes. Some of them described the shirt the man was
> wearing as a light colored sport shirt with a collar.
Why not be honest and write what each individual said, instead of
dishonestly lumping them together?
> The shirt was
> described as open at the neck and unbuttoned about halfway down.
By all four?
> A
> white T- shirt was seen beneath the light colored sport shirt.
By all four? Why not just say who said this, instead of trying to
make it seem like there is a consensus on this point?
> The
> light colored, button front sport shirt was described by the witnesses
> as "white", "dingy white", "light yellow", "khaki" and "light
> blue" ..... Whatever the exact color was it's obvious that the shirt
> was NOT the DARK reddish brown shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing that
> day.
"whatever the exact color was". If you don`t know, why did you
write "Gunman in White" in the header? Idiot.
> One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
> colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> with a long exposed metal barrel,
Quote Rowland saying anything about a long exposed metal barrel.
> and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> barrel.
What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
this?
> The Mannlicher Carcano found on the sixth floor did NOT have
> an exposed metal barrel. The barrel of the MC was covered by the
> wooden stock.
> Arnold Rowland specifically said that he saw the man who was wearing
> the light colored shirt had the hunting rifle
He called it a high powered rifle in his affidavit, and WC
testimony. He also called it a "deer rifle". He also called it a "30-
odd-six", which is 30-aught-six, which is a caliber, not a type of
rifle. M-1 military rifles are 30.06.
> with the scope about 3
> to 5 feet behind the wide open window on the far west end of the sixth
> floor. Brennan never said the man was behind that window but he
> DESCRBED that window in his testimony before the Warren
> Commission.
> Rowland, Fischer, and Edwards only described the man's shirt, either
> didn't see his trousers or didn't pay any attention to his trousers,
Always check anything Walt says...
Quote On>
Rowland: He had on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn`t tell from
that. I didn`t see but a small portion.
Specter: You say you only saw a small portion of what?
Rowland: Of his pants from the waist down
Quote Off>
I didn`t bother to check the other two.
> Brennan however DID notice the man's trousers, he said they appeared
> to be a "little lighter in color" than the man's shirt. Oswald was
> wearing DARK gray trousers at the time of the shooting.
A match to Rowland`s "dark slacks" though.
> Fischer and Edwards saw the man wearing the light colored sport shirt
> "among the boxes behind the window at the EAST end of the building
> BEFORE the motorcade arrived, if they saw a rifle in the man's hands
> they never reported that. Howard Brennan also saw the man behind
> that east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan said he saw
> the man leave and return to the window a couple of times. Fisher and
> Edwards saw the man in the EAST end window, and said he appeared to be
> sitting on a box or something because they could only see the upper
> portion ( head, shoulders and chest ) of the man. They said the window
> was not fully open.
>
> Howard Brennan, was about seventyfive feet closer to the gunman when
> he was behind the WEST end window than Arnold Rowland, described the
> physical characteristics of the man wearing the light colored
> clothing. Brennan said the gunman appeared to be in his early
> thirties, and he weighed about 165 to 175 pounds. Oswald had just
> celebrated his 24th birthday and his booking sheet lists his weight as
> 140 pounds.
Who said Walt was beyond teaching? I see he has dropped his usual
30-35 claim, and replaced it with what Brennan actually said "early
thirties".
> It's should be obvious to any openminded person that the White
> clothing clad gunman was NOT Lee Oswald.
After admitting that the witnesses put the man on the 6th floor in
generally light colored clothing, he goes right beyond that to declare
it "white". What a mind.
>
> Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Walt you ignorant slut,
You outright ignored the fact that I suggested the because the T-shirt
could have had a stretched out collar, like Oswald's did, and that it
was viewed by Fischer from over a hundred feet away, it could have
appeared to have been open at the collar.
Not only are you a one-dimensional thinker, you're a dishonest one at
that.
But then I've known that for years.
Todd
>
>
>
>
>
> > > How the hell would a man don a CLOSED NECK shirt.
>
> > In this context (open neck versus closed neck), the man would pull it
> > over their head, you stupid asshole.
>
> > Millions of men do this everyday, you stupid asshole.
>
> > > When a person uses
> > > the term "open necked shirt" they are usually referring to a sport
> > > shirt that is not buttoned completely to the throat, or a shirt with
> > > the top button not buttoned and no neck tie.
>
> > Or a
>
Bud
Yah, maybe Oz wasn`t even in Dallas that day. Maybe.
> Help us out here Dudster!
I don`t think I`m qualified to dispense the kind of help you`re in
need of, Healy.
David Von Pein
Yeah...only Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Oswald's prints, Oswald's
shells, Oswald's prints on that bag too...plus his rifle on the same
floor, near the ONLY stairway (which Oz most certainly had to use to
get downstairs).
That's all.
But that equals "no evidence" to the "ABO" kooks.
(ABO="Anybody But Oswald".)
I see that Healy is now gonna start licking Walt's asscrack now. Nice.
tomnln
"could have"
" probably"
"possibly"
"Sure he said that. But could he have been mistaken?"
WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
toad's LIES in 3rd feature down from top.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175540062.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> Typical WC GUESSWORK;
>
> "could have"
> " probably"
> "possibly"
> "Sure he said that. But could he have been mistaken?"
Tomnln,
Your critical thinking skills are on par with a sand flea.
Todd
>
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm
>
> toad's LIES in 3rd feature down from top.
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175540062.5...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> On Apr 2, 3:40 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Typical WC GUESSWORK;
> >
> > "could have"
> > " probably"
> > "possibly"
> > "Sure he said that. But could he have been mistaken?"
>
>
> Tomnln,
>
> Your critical thinking skills are on par with a sand flea.
Naw, they know when to hop off a hot brick. Tom would sit there and
sizzle.
Walt
I ignored it because it's a ridiculous THEORY. We've both seen photos
of Oswald in that stretched neck T-shirt and lie as you will, you and
I both know that that saggy necked T-shirt would never be confused
with with a button front sport shirt that was open at the collar.
Yer graspin at straws tryin to save yer lyin ass from being sucked
under by the whirlpool of information that utterly refutes the Warren
Commission's decree.
Walt
Walt
If that's true why are you fightin me??
Walt
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
The Warren Commission questioned the FBI man about the freshness of
the fibers, he said they were very fresh as if they had been there
only a short time. We both know why the W.C. would want the FBI man
to say the fibers were fresh. They wanted it to appear that Oswald had
had that rifle against his shoulder at 12: 30 pm 11/ 22 /63.
He just as easily
> could have then taken the shirt off and been wearing a t-shirt before
> and whil efiring. After killing Kennedy (and that's what he did, he
> killed Kennedy) he could have put the shirt back on as he made his way
> downstairs.
Did he also lose about 35 pounds and drop about 7years off his
appearance as he made a mad dash for the lunchroom?
You do know that Brennan decribed the white clothing clad gunman as in
his early thirties and weighing as much as 175 pounds don't you Toad??
Walt
Walt
No I don't think he was mistaken ....He seems pretty confident about
the color of the gunmans clothes.
Here's what he said:
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. Brennan.
I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I
called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. Belin.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. Brennan.
That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
window.
Mr. Belin.
You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. Brennan.
Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the
same clothes on.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Doesn't sound like he wasn't sure that the gunman was wearing white
trousers.
and he very clearly says that Oswald did NOT look like the gunman and
one reason he did NOT look like the gunman was because.... " he
( Oswald) just didn't have the same clothes on."
Even a stupid LNer should be able to understand that Brennan was
saying that Oswald did NOT look like the gunman he'd seen in the WEST
end window and one of the differences was the gunman had been dressed
in white clothes while Oswald was dressed in a GRAY shirt and DARK
trousers..
Walt
>
> >They think they can lie their way clear of
> > this whirlpool by ignoring Brennan's testimony where he said the
> > gunman was wearing trousers that were a shade lighter than his shirt,
> > and trying to shift attention to the shirt only. They know that
> > Oswald was dressed in a brown shirt and dark gray trousers that day
>
> Sans a photogrpah of Oswald at work that day, we really don't know to
> a 100% certainty what he was wearing.
>
> > and they think they can avoid being sucked down into the whirlpool by
> > saying that Oswald removed his brown shirt and therefore the witnesses
> > saw him in his T-shirt. They also have to ignore their own misleading
> > "evidence" of the tuft of fibers found on the butt of the rifle. The
> > FBI claimed that they found fibers snagged from the shirt that Oswald
> > was wearing at the time of his arrest. Years ago they swayed the
> > public into believing Oswald was guilty of having the rifle against
> > his shoulder while wearing the shirt from which the fibers came. The
> > implication of that evidence was obvious, but now they have to lie
> > their way away from that because obviously if Oswald was wearing only
> > a T-shirt as they claim then the fibers couldn't have came from the
> > shirt he was wearing at the time.
>
> Your thinking is so one-dimensional sometimes it's ridiculous. You ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Proven Liar in his own words.
3rd feature from the top.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175543731.5...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Mr. Specter.
And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. Rowland.
No; except that it was dark, probably black.
Mr. Specter.
Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any
characteristic as to quantity of hair?
Mr. Rowland.
It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't
have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know
it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.
Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. Rowland.
He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light
blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it
was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a
polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had
on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see
but a small portion.
>
> > One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
> > colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> > described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> > was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> > Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> > wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> > his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> > saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> > him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> > Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> > with a long exposed metal barrel,
>
> Quote Rowland saying anything about a long exposed metal barrel.
Dear dumbass go learn to read..... I said hunting rifles have long
exposed exposed metal barrels.
Rowland recognized it as a high powered hunting rifle.
>
> > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > barrel.
>
> What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> this?
Brennan said the white clothing clad gunman was STANDING and bracing
the rifle against the vertical side of the window. He said he could
see all of the gunman's upper body from his hips to the top of his
head. Brennan could not have seen a gunman STANDING and bracing
against the vertical side of the window unless that window was FULLY
OPEN. Therefore he was DESCRIBING the WEST end window not the partly
open window on the EAST end of the sixth floor. Brennan said he could
see about 85% of the rifle, and he could see ALL of the Barrel as the
man aimed the rifle out of the window. While I would agree that
Brennan's description by itself is a bit vague, when it is taken into
consideration with Arnold Rowland's statement that the man had a
hunting rifle with a scope on it., it becomes clear what Brennan meant
when he said he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL". The barrel of a
Mannlicher Carcano only extends about 5 inches past the wooden stock.
So only about 5 inches of the barrel would have been visible. It's not
likely that Brennan would have said that he could see "all of the
barrel" if only 5inches of the barrel were visible.
Walt
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Quote On>
Quote Off>
Here's the full statement I wonder why Dud didn't post the entire
exchange? Always check on Dud....
Mr. Specter.
And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. Rowland.
No; except that it was dark, probably black.
Mr. Specter.
Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any
characteristic as to quantity of hair?
Mr. Rowland.
It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't
have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know
it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.
Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. Rowland.
He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light
blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it
was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a
polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had
on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see
but a small portion.
Maybe Dud didn't post this testimony because Rowland described the
gunmans hair ....
Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any
characteristic as to quantity of hair?
Mr. Rowland.
It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he didn't
have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know
it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.
Rowland said the gunman had a full head of black hair with NO receding
hairline....Hmmmm Oswald had light brown hair that was thinning and a
pronounced receding hairline.
Or maybe he didn't want us to see that how Rowland described the
gunman's shirt...
Mr. Specter.
What, if anything, did you observe as to the clothes he was wearing?
Mr. Rowland.
He had on a light shirt, a very light-colored shirt, white or a light
blue or a color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it
was unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a
polo shirt under this, at least this is what it appeared to be. He had
on dark slacks or blue jeans, I couldn't tell from that I didn't see
but a small portion.
Walt
Bud
I fight stupidity like Batman fights crime. You are the Joker of
stupidity.
Bud
Is there a point to this testimony you produced, Walt?
> > > One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
> > > colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> > > described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> > > was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> > > Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> > > wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> > > his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> > > saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> > > him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> > > Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> > > with a long exposed metal barrel,
> >
> > Quote Rowland saying anything about a long exposed metal barrel.
>
> Dear dumbass go learn to read..... I said hunting rifles have long
> exposed exposed metal barrels.
> Rowland recognized it as a high powered hunting rifle.
Thats what I thought. It`s something your twisted brain read into
the testimony, not something the witness actually said.
> > > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > > barrel.
> >
> > What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> > the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> > this?
>
> Brennan said the white clothing clad gunman
Stop with the lies already, Idiot. Brennan never stated the man he
saw was wearing white.
> was STANDING and bracing
> the rifle against the vertical side of the window. He said he could
> see all of the gunman's upper body from his hips to the top of his
> head. Brennan could not have seen a gunman STANDING and bracing
> against the vertical side of the window unless that window was FULLY
> OPEN. Therefore he was DESCRIBING the WEST end window not the partly
> open window on the EAST end of the sixth floor. Brennan said he could
> see about 85% of the rifle, and he could see ALL of the Barrel as the
> man aimed the rifle out of the window. While I would agree that
> Brennan's description by itself is a bit vague, when it is taken into
> consideration with Arnold Rowland's statement that the man had a
> hunting rifle with a scope on it., it becomes clear what Brennan meant
> when he said he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL". The barrel of a
> Mannlicher Carcano only extends about 5 inches past the wooden stock.
> So only about 5 inches of the barrel would have been visible. It's not
> likely that Brennan would have said that he could see "all of the
> barrel" if only 5inches of the barrel were visible.
I won`t even try to untangle that mangling of the evidence. You
consider your assumptions and conclusions to be fact, and discard the
actual facts you find inconvenient.
Bud
Or maybe I just included the part of Rowland`s testimony that made
the point I was making, that you were wrong when you claimed that only
Brennan described the man of the 6th floor`s pants. If you want to go
into the physical descriptions these men used to describe the man they
saw, lets do it. They used some descriptive terms that fit Oz very
well.
tomnln
You still wanna make personal attacks?
I'll STILL RETALIATE.
1. Did your mom Die from the AIDS you gave her?
2. Or, are you STILL practicing Incest with her?
If you wanna discuss evidence/testimony,
START HERE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1175544318.7...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
Walt
Ok, let's debate the physical characteristics of the man in the light
colored open necked sport shirt.
Mr. Specter.
And were you able to observe any characteristics of his hair?
Mr. Rowland.
No; except that it was dark, probably black.
Mr. Specter.
Were you able to observe whether he had a full head of hair or any
characteristic as to quantity of hair?
Mr. Rowland.
It didn't appear as if he had a receding hairline but I know he
didn't
have it hanging on his shoulders. Probably a close cut from--you know
it appeared to me it was either well-combed or close cut.
Do you suppose Oswald was wearing a wig?
Walt
Walt
I just wanted to be sure that you saw the actual testimony where
Rowland SAID the gunman was wearing a "WHITE" shirt that was "OPEN AT
THE COLLAR" ....and "UNBUTTONED ABOUT HALF WAY DOWN"......
Doesn't describe a T-Shirt does it, Dud?
>
> > > > One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
> > > > colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> > > > described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> > > > was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> > > > Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> > > > wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> > > > his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> > > > saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> > > > him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> > > > Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> > > > with a long exposed metal barrel,
>
> > > Quote Rowland saying anything about a long exposed metal barrel.
>
> > Dear dumbass go learn to read..... I said hunting rifles have long
> > exposed exposed metal barrels.
> > Rowland recognized it as a high powered hunting rifle.
>
> Thats what I thought. It`s something your twisted brain read into
> the testimony, not something the witness actually said.
Yea I guess that I did interpret his description as an exposed matal
barrel hunting rifle. Rowland said the rifle he saw in the hands of
the gunman wearing the white sport shirt was very similar to his
Father-in-law's "deer rifle" He also referred to that rifle as a "30
odd 6" that he had used to go hunting.
Perhaps you should go to a sporting goods store and ask them if you
can look at their hunting rifles. Everybody knows that they will show
you rifles with long exposed metal barrels. At least that's what my
"twisted brain" would assume.
>
> > > > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > > > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > > > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > > > barrel.
>
> > > What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> > > the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> > > this?
>
> > Brennan said the white clothing clad gunman
>
> Stop with the lies already, Idiot. Brennan never stated the man he
> saw was wearing white.
Oh he sure did, Dud..... you remember he said it could have been a
dingy "WHITE"
And he said the man with the hunting rifle had on trousers that were a
"little bit lighter in color" than his dingy white shirt.
That means the man was wearing white clothing, Dud.
>
> > was STANDING and bracing
> > the rifle against the vertical side of the window. He said he could
> > see all of the gunman's upper body from his hips to the top of his
> > head. Brennan could not have seen a gunman STANDING and bracing
> > against the vertical side of the window unless that window was FULLY
> > OPEN. Therefore he was DESCRIBING the WEST end window not the partly
> > open window on the EAST end of the sixth floor. Brennan said he could
> > see about 85% of the rifle, and he could see ALL of the Barrel as the
> > man aimed the rifle out of the window. While I would agree that
> > Brennan's description by itself is a bit vague, when it is taken into
> > consideration with Arnold Rowland's statement that the man had a
> > hunting rifle with a scope on it., it becomes clear what Brennan meant
> > when he said he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL". The barrel of a
> > Mannlicher Carcano only extends about 5 inches past the wooden stock.
> > So only about 5 inches of the barrel would have been visible. It's not
> > likely that Brennan would have said that he could see "all of the
> > barrel" if only 5inches of the barrel were visible.
>
> I won`t even try to untangle that mangling of the evidence. You
> consider your assumptions and conclusions to be fact, and discard the
> actual facts you find inconvenient.
C'mon Dud.....you can probably think up a new lie in an attempt to
refute these FACTS.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
Yep, though he couldn't say for sure. Fits perfectly with him handling
the rifle wearing that shirt.
>We both know why the W.C. would want the FBI man
> to say the fibers were fresh. They wanted it to appear that Oswald had
> had that rifle against his shoulder at 12: 30 pm 11/ 22 /63.
>
> He just as easily
>
> > could have then taken the shirt off and been wearing a t-shirt before
> > and whil efiring. After killing Kennedy (and that's what he did, he
> > killed Kennedy) he could have put the shirt back on as he made his way
> > downstairs.
>
> Did he also lose about 35 pounds and drop about 7years off his
> appearance as he made a mad dash for the lunchroom?
No. Did the witesses have binoculars?
>
> You do know that Brennan decribed the white clothing clad gunman as in
> his early thirties and weighing as much as 175 pounds don't you Toad??
Yep.
How far away was he, Walt?
And do you agree that people often over or under estimate things like
height, weight, time, etc?
Bud
tomnln wrote:
> You're a Slow Learner BUD;
You`re a Poor Teacher, TOM.
> You still wanna make personal attacks?
> I'll STILL RETALIATE.
>
> 1. Did your mom Die from the AIDS you gave her?
"Gave her?" You think I just give that stuff away?
> 2. Or, are you STILL practicing Incest with her?
We`ve advanced past the "practicing" stage.
Bud
What about Edwards and Fischer? They both indicated the man they
saw had brown hair. After lumping all these guys together as seeing
the same man, you aren`t going to jump ship and say they were all
looking at entirely different men, are you? So, put on your thinking
cap, and explain how if there are three people looking at the same
person, that they fail to all describe the same color hair on that
person.
Bud
From the distance away Rowland was, Oz`s t-shirt could very well
appear as Rowland is describing.
> > > > > One of the witnesses, Howard Brennan, saw the man wearing the light
> > > > > colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> > > > > described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> > > > > was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> > > > > Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> > > > > wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> > > > > his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> > > > > saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> > > > > him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> > > > > Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> > > > > with a long exposed metal barrel,
> >
> > > > Quote Rowland saying anything about a long exposed metal barrel.
> >
> > > Dear dumbass go learn to read..... I said hunting rifles have long
> > > exposed exposed metal barrels.
> > > Rowland recognized it as a high powered hunting rifle.
> >
> > Thats what I thought. It`s something your twisted brain read into
> > the testimony, not something the witness actually said.
>
> Yea I guess that I did interpret his description as an exposed matal
> barrel hunting rifle.
Yah, I know. You are never content to leave what the witnesses say
alone. If they say they made the distinction because of the barrel,
than you can. If they don`t, then it is only your assumptions.
> Rowland said the rifle he saw in the hands of
> the gunman wearing the white sport shirt was very similar to his
> Father-in-law's "deer rifle"
Which means bumpkiss to anyone who never saw his father`s hunting
rifle.
> He also referred to that rifle as a "30
> odd 6" that he had used to go hunting.
Means nothing, Walt, people go hunting with all kinds of rifles. I
went deer hunting with a Mauser.
> Perhaps you should go to a sporting goods store and ask them if you
> can look at their hunting rifles. Everybody knows that they will show
> you rifles with long exposed metal barrels. At least that's what my
> "twisted brain" would assume.
Well, thats the problem I was pointing out. And why would I need to
go to a store, I can get images of just about any rifle on the
internet I want to. It took me seconds to find these 30.06 rifles with
unexposed barrels...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1cm1d.jpg
There are plenty more. The M1, which was US army issue for years
is 30.06. There is no way you can exclude any type of rifle with the
terms Rowland is using.
> > > > > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > > > > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > > > > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > > > > barrel.
> >
> > > > What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> > > > the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> > > > this?
> >
> > > Brennan said the white clothing clad gunman
> >
> > Stop with the lies already, Idiot. Brennan never stated the man he
> > saw was wearing white.
>
> Oh he sure did, Dud..... you remember he said it could have been a
> dingy "WHITE"
Brennan never said the guman was wearing white. Everythime you put
that information in Brennan`s mouth, you are lying.
> And he said the man with the hunting rifle had on trousers that were a
> "little bit lighter in color" than his dingy white shirt.
>
> That means the man was wearing white clothing, Dud.
It means "white" when the witness say "white", Walt. Leave the
interpretations to those better suited.
> > > was STANDING and bracing
> > > the rifle against the vertical side of the window. He said he could
> > > see all of the gunman's upper body from his hips to the top of his
> > > head. Brennan could not have seen a gunman STANDING and bracing
> > > against the vertical side of the window unless that window was FULLY
> > > OPEN. Therefore he was DESCRIBING the WEST end window not the partly
> > > open window on the EAST end of the sixth floor. Brennan said he could
> > > see about 85% of the rifle, and he could see ALL of the Barrel as the
> > > man aimed the rifle out of the window. While I would agree that
> > > Brennan's description by itself is a bit vague, when it is taken into
> > > consideration with Arnold Rowland's statement that the man had a
> > > hunting rifle with a scope on it., it becomes clear what Brennan meant
> > > when he said he could see "ALL OF THE BARREL". The barrel of a
> > > Mannlicher Carcano only extends about 5 inches past the wooden stock.
> > > So only about 5 inches of the barrel would have been visible. It's not
> > > likely that Brennan would have said that he could see "all of the
> > > barrel" if only 5inches of the barrel were visible.
> >
> > I won`t even try to untangle that mangling of the evidence. You
> > consider your assumptions and conclusions to be fact, and discard the
> > actual facts you find inconvenient.
>
>
> C'mon Dud.....you can probably think up a new lie in an attempt to
> refute these FACTS.
OK, offhand, I see you making the same stupid argument about
Brennan seeing the man (Oz) standing, even though it has been pointed
out to you numerous times that Brennan thought the black guys on the
5th floor were also standing, when in fact they were kneeling. Brennan
said the gunman (Oz) had the rifle resting on the window *sill*, which
is the bottom of the window frame, so that alone tells you the gunman
(Oz) could not have been standing. Brennan, didn`t say he could see
85% of the rifle, he testified to seeing "I calculate 70-85% of the
gun", so that part of what you said isn`t a factm but a lie. The other
oft refuted nonsense about it being the west window Brennan saw a
shooter in isn`t worth another rebuttal, DVP demolished that assertion
on more than one occasion. I don`t even understand you "barrel"
argument, Brennan said he could see 70-85% of the gun, and all of the
barrel,, so why wouldn``t seeing so much of the gun include seeing all
of the short barrel?
Walt
Mr. Belin.
What kind of clothes did he have on?
Mr. Edwards.
Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck.
That doesn't match Oswald's Long sleeve dark colored reddish brown
shirt.
Mr. Belin.
What color hair did the man have?
Mr. Edwards.
Light brown.
Mr. Belin.
Light brown hair?
Mr. Edwards.
That is what I would say; yes, sir.
Many men have light brown hair..... too bad Edwards didn't sat
anything else about the mans hair. was it long or short, receding or
full.... all we can learn from Edwards is he thought the guys hair was
"light brown"
Let's see if Ronald Fischer can shed any further light on the hair of
the man with with the LIGHT COLORED OPEN NECK SPORT SHIRT.
Mr. Belin.
The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an
open-neck shirt. Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
Mr. Fischer.
Yes.
Mr. Belin.
Now, what about being light-headed?
Mr. FISCHER. By "light-headed," I meant that he didn't have black
hair. He didn't have dark--he didn't have well, when I say "dark," I
mean black. He didn't have black hair. He didn't have blonde hair.
When I said, "light-headed," I didn't mean blonde or I would have said
that, but--uh.
Mr. Belin.
What color of hair did you mean? Did you say "light-headed"?
Mr. Fischer.
I believe I did say "light-headed"--because I didn't--like I say--I
didn't want it to appear that he was dark.
"I didn't want it to appear that he was dark"
Mr. Belin.
By "dark," what color do you mean?
Mr. Fischer.
Black.
Fischer wanted to be sure that Belin understood that the gunman was
NOT Black
Mr. BELIN.. Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your
recollection, what color hair did he have?
Mr. FISCHER. Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one
way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too
hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure,
just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it
wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that
as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or
whatever you call it--I don't know.
Fisher just knew the man wearing the light colored sport shirt that
was open at the neck didn't have blond hair nor did he have black
hair..... not much help there either.
So we have Edwards saying the man's hair was light brown, like
thousands of other men in Dallas, Fisher' description is worthless he
said it could have been light brown or dark brown. Rowland is a little
better because he apparently noticed that the guy in the light colored
open necked sport shirt did NOT have a rededing hair line, though he
said the mans hair was black. We could probably combine the color
descriptions and say the man had dark brown hair, but I know you'll
balk at that because of your hatred for Oswald.
Walt
Todd W. Vaughan
LOL!
The great Walt tells us how Fischer could "never" be confused.
He's in Fischer's head - knows how the man thinks - knows what tricks
his brain or not.
It's absolute folks, cause Walt says so!
LOL!
Listen Cakebread, if your beloved Jean Hill could mistake some flowers
in the limousine for a dog, Fischer could mistake a stretched neck T-
shirt for a open neck shirt.
Bud
Possible description of him in his t-shirt, though.
> Mr. Belin.
> What color hair did the man have?
> Mr. Edwards.
> Light brown.
> Mr. Belin.
> Light brown hair?
> Mr. Edwards.
> That is what I would say; yes, sir.
>
> Many men have light brown hair..... too bad Edwards didn't sat
> anything else about the mans hair. was it long or short, receding or
> full.... all we can learn from Edwards is he thought the guys hair was
> "light brown"
Like Oz`s.
> Let's see if Ronald Fischer can shed any further light on the hair of
> the man with with the LIGHT COLORED OPEN NECK SPORT SHIRT.
Fischer said it could have been a t-shirt.
> Mr. Belin.
> The statement here says that he was light-headed and that he had on an
> open-neck shirt. Did he have an open---neck shirt on?
> Mr. Fischer.
> Yes.
> Mr. Belin.
> Now, what about being light-headed?
> Mr. FISCHER. By "light-headed," I meant that he didn't have black
> hair. He didn't have dark--he didn't have well, when I say "dark," I
> mean black. He didn't have black hair. He didn't have blonde hair.
> When I said, "light-headed," I didn't mean blonde or I would have said
> that, but--uh.
> Mr. Belin.
> What color of hair did you mean? Did you say "light-headed"?
> Mr. Fischer.
> I believe I did say "light-headed"--because I didn't--like I say--I
> didn't want it to appear that he was dark.
>
> "I didn't want it to appear that he was dark"
>
> Mr. Belin.
> By "dark," what color do you mean?
> Mr. Fischer.
> Black.
>
> Fischer wanted to be sure that Belin understood that the gunman was
> NOT Black
They are talking about hair color, not skin. Idiot.
> Mr. BELIN.. Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your
> recollection, what color hair did he have?
> Mr. FISCHER. Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one
> way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too
> hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure,
> just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it
> wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that
> as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or
> whatever you call it--I don't know.
>
> Fisher just knew the man wearing the light colored sport shirt that
> was open at the neck
http://rotten.com/library/bio/crime/assassins/lee-harvey-oswald/oswald-mugshot.jpg
> didn't have blond hair nor did he have black
> hair..... not much help there either.
He says brown. The color of Oz`s hair.
> So we have Edwards saying the man's hair was light brown, like
> thousands of other men in Dallas, Fisher' description is worthless he
> said it could have been light brown or dark brown.
Both men said the man they observed on the 6th floor of the TBBD
had brown hair. What was the name of that brown haired guy Givens
spoke to on that floor previous to the assassination? Oswald?
> Rowland is a little
> better because he
Is much further away than the other three from the TSBD?
> apparently noticed that the guy in the light colored
> open necked sport shirt did NOT have a rededing hair line, though he
> said the mans hair was black. We could probably combine the color
> descriptions and say the man had dark brown hair, but I know you'll
> balk at that because of your hatred for Oswald.
Is this what putting on your thinking cap produces? Combining the
descriptions?
Walt
Dud you're disgusting...... You're such a liar that you'd try to pass
off a militay rifle as a sporting, or hunting rifle. Have you no
shame..... you're not fooling anybody. Any honest person reading your
post would know in a heartbeat that you were being dishonest. Hell
even people who have little knowledge of guns have walked past the
sporting goods counters in departments stores and seen the exposed
metal barrels of all of those hunting rifles in the rifle racks.
Whetehr you realize it or not you just gave yourself a black eye.
>
> > > > > > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > > > > > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > > > > > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > > > > > barrel.
>
> > > > > What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> > > > > the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> > > > > this?
Brennan said he could see about 85% of the rifle in the hands of the
man wearing the light colored sport shirt that was open at the neck,
as he STOOD and braced against the vertical side of the wide open
window, and he said he could see ALL OF THE BARREL as the man aimed
the rifle out of the window. true the term "All of the Barrel" is a
bit vague, but since Rowland also saw the man behind that wideopen
window on the WEST end of the sixth floor, and he said it looked like
a deer rifle ( hunting rifle, with a long exposed metal barrel) with a
scope on it, we have a clue what Brennan meant by "all of the
barrel"
>
> > > > Brennan said the white clothing clad gunman
>
> > > Stop with the lies already, Idiot. Brennan never stated the man he
> > > saw was wearing white.
>
> > Oh he sure did, Dud..... you remember he said it could have been a
> > dingy "WHITE"
>
> Brennan never said the guman was wearing white. Everythime you put
> that information in Brennan`s mouth, you are lying.
>
> > And he said the man with the hunting rifle had on trousers that were a
> > "little bit lighter in color" than his dingy white shirt.
>
> > That means the man was wearing white clothing, Dud.
>
> It means "white" when the witness say "white", Walt. Leave the
> interpretations to those better suited.
Dud....Is "dingy white" a shade of "WHITE"?.... Yes or no
Walt
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Walt
What he thought about the men on the fifth floor is irrelevant.....
Brennan KNEW the man was standing because he said the man was STANDING
as he aimed the rifle out of the window. He DESCRIBED seeing the mans
entire upper body from his hips to the top of his head. Arnold
Rowland also saw the gunman STANDING there in that wide open window
and his DESCRIPTION is identical to Brennan's. If the gunman had
been kneeling as Bonnie Ray Williams is seen doing in the east end 5th
floor window in the Dillard photo, that's how the gunman in the white
sport shirt would have appeared to Rowland and Brennan.... and they
would not have been able to see ALL OF THE MAN"S UPPER BODY from his
hips to the top of his head. If the gunman had been kneeling as you
suggest Rowland and Brennan would only have seen his shoulders and
head..
Brennan said the gunman (Oz) had the rifle resting on the window
*sill*, which is the bottom of the window frame, so that alone tells
you the gunman (Oz) could not have been standing.
I can't access Brennan's testimony righ now....But.. What he said
was...he saw the man standing and bracing against the left side of the
window as he fired the last shot. He could see all of the upper
portion of the mans body from his hips to the top of his head.
Brennan, didn`t say he could see 85% of the rifle, he testified to
seeing "I calculate 70-85% of the
gun", so that part of what you said isn`t a factm but a lie.
70 to 85% of the rifle ---- means that he could see somewhere between
70% and 85% .....I choose to believe the upper figure if you don't
like it... that's too damned bad.
Walt
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Bud
I don`t know what you think you are accomplishing with this rant.
You certainly didn`t touch the points I made. You can`t exclude any
rifles with what Rowald said. He said 30-odd-six. That is a common
caliber of miltary-type rifles. He said 'deer rifle". Military rifles
are often used for hunting.
> > > > > > > and a telescoptic sight. Brennan
> > > > > > > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > > > > > > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > > > > > > barrel.
> >
> > > > > > What would be an indication of a long, exposed metal barrel would be
> > > > > > the witness saying that is what he saw. Can you quote Brennan saying
> > > > > > this?
>
> Brennan said he could see about 85% of the rifle
Thats a lie. He gave a range, 70-85%.
> in the hands of the
> man wearing the light colored sport shirt that was open at the neck,
> as he STOOD and braced against the vertical side of the wide open
> window,
Sill. You do know where the sill is on a window, don`t you?
> and he said he could see ALL OF THE BARREL as the man aimed
> the rifle out of the window. true the term "All of the Barrel" is a
> bit vague, but since Rowland also saw the man behind that wideopen
> window on the WEST end of the sixth floor, and he said it looked like
> a deer rifle ( hunting rifle, with a long exposed metal barrel)
Rowland does not say "long exposed metal barrel", nor does he ever
even indicate that it was such a feature that determined it to be a
hunting rifle by this feature. These are you kook assumptions, Walt.
Bud
Yah, kooks usually find viewing information in the proper context
inconvenient.
> Brennan KNEW the man was standing because he said the man was STANDING
> as he aimed the rifle out of the window.
On the window *sill*. Could a standing man rest his rifle on the
sill, Walt? But, if the gunman was kneeling like the men on the 5th
floor, Brennan could get the same mistaken impression of all of them,
that they were all standing (when in fact, none of them were).
> He DESCRIBED seeing the mans
> entire upper body from his hips to the top of his head. Arnold
> Rowland also saw the gunman STANDING there in that wide open window
> and his DESCRIPTION is identical to Brennan's.
Thats a lie.
> If the gunman had
> been kneeling as Bonnie Ray Williams is seen doing in the east end 5th
> floor window in the Dillard photo, that's how the gunman in the white
> sport shirt would have appeared to Rowland and Brennan.... and they
> would not have been able to see ALL OF THE MAN"S UPPER BODY from his
> hips to the top of his head. If the gunman had been kneeling as you
> suggest Rowland and Brennan would only have seen his shoulders and
> head..
Rowland saw him standing in the west window. Brennan thought him to
be standing while shooting in the east window (but he also thought the
5th floor guys were standing, when in fact they were kneeling.) .
Still stumped on the basic, eh, Walt?
> Brennan said the gunman (Oz) had the rifle resting on the window
> *sill*, which is the bottom of the window frame, so that alone tells
> you the gunman (Oz) could not have been standing.
>
> I can't access Brennan's testimony righ now....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
>But.. What he said
> was...he saw the man standing and bracing against the left side of the
> window as he fired the last shot. He could see all of the upper
> portion of the mans body from his hips to the top of his head.
What he said was... "Well, as it appeared to me, he was standing up
and resting against the left window sill..."
> Brennan, didn`t say he could see 85% of the rifle, he testified to
> seeing "I calculate 70-85% of the
> gun", so that part of what you said isn`t a fact but a lie.
>
> 70 to 85% of the rifle ---- means that he could see somewhere between
> 70% and 85% .....I choose to believe the upper figure if you don't
> like it... that's too damned bad.
Sure, you are free to lie if you want, I`ll just point it out. The
difference is, you make it sound as if Brennan asserted an 85% figure,
as if he was sure. The true 70-85% figure makes it clear he is
offering a guesstimate. You dishonestly present information once more.
Walt
Hey Dud.....you really need to learn to read ..Then perhaps you would
appear to be so damned dumb.
Fischer said;.... Quote .."I didn't want it to appear that... HE..
was dark"... Unquote.
Mr. Belin.
By "dark," what color do you mean?
Mr. Fischer.
Black.
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.
There's a lot of information in the above statement Dud..... "The gun
man was STANDING UP" .....
" 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."
Brennan dived off the wall that he was sitting on, and took shelter on
the houston street ( EAST) side of the wall to protect himself from
the gunman's bullets. That means the gunman was to the WEST of his
location. Look at CE 477 on page 62 of the W.R. and notice where
Brennan is sitting in that re-enactment photo. The TSBD is in the
background and the sixth floor SE corner window is directly across the
street from Brennan's position. If the gunman had been firing from
that window, Brennan's action would have been utterly futile....He
would still have been in plain view. Therefore the gunman HAD to
have been to the WEST of Brennan who was huddling down on the EAST
side of the wall. The ONLY sixth floor window that was open to the
west of Brennan was the WIDE OPEN window on the far WEST end of the
sixth floor.
> > Mr. BELIN.. Well, once again, I'll ask you, to the best of your
> > recollection, what color hair did he have?
> > Mr. FISCHER. Uh--like I say, it's too hard for me to---uh--to tell one
> > way or the other. At the distance I was, uh--it's just- -it's just too
> > hard for me to--I'm not going to say it because I don't know for sure,
> > just exactly what shade of hair he did have. It wasn't blonde and it
> > wasn't black. Somewhere in between. And it was a shade of brown that
> > as to whether it was a dark brown, a light brown, a medium brown, or
> > whatever you call it--I don't know.
>
> > Fisher just knew the man wearing the light colored sport shirt that
> > was open at the neck was not Oswald
Walt
> http://rotten.com/library/bio/crime/assassins/lee-harvey-oswald/oswal...
>
>
>
> > didn't
>
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Walt
floor, Brennan could get the same mistaken impression of ...
You are a liar...Brenan did NOT say "ON" the window sill.....
Mr. Brennan.
Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the
left window sill, with ...
Well, as it appeared to me he was STANDING UP and resting AGAINST
the left window sill, ...
Walt
Bud
<snicker> This is just another example of why you shouldn`t be
looking into anything deeper than your belly button. When two people
who aren`t idiots are talking about a particular subject, once the
topic is ubderstood by both parties, they will sometimes omit words,
because these unspoken words are understood by both parties (but not
by every idiot walking). Therefore "dark haired", or "black haired" is
understood with "haired" added, because the topic being discussed was
hair, not skin color.
What they are actually discussing is Fischers use of the term
"light-headed" in his affidavit. Belin wanted to know if by this,
Fischer meant "blond". Fischer responded that no, if he wanted to mean
"blond, he would have said "blond". The concept Fischer was trying to
get across by saying light haired was NOT DARK (haired). Your brain
just can`t fight it`s way past troublesome information, can it, Walt?
> Mr. Belin.
> By "dark," what color do you mean?
> Mr. Fischer.
> Black.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
> There's a lot of information in the above statement Dud..... "The gun
> man was STANDING UP" .....
Yah, as I said, he also thought the 5th floor guys were standing
also, when in fact they were kneeling. So he was consistantly in error
about the positions of the people in the windows, he thought the
people on the fifth and sixth floor were all standing, when in fact,
they were all kneeling.
> " 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."
>
> Brennan dived off the wall that he was sitting on, and took shelter on
> the houston street ( EAST) side of the wall to protect himself from
> the gunman's bullets. That means the gunman was to the WEST of his
> location.
Means no such thing.
> Look at CE 477 on page 62 of the W.R. and notice where
> Brennan is sitting in that re-enactment photo. The TSBD is in the
> background and the sixth floor SE corner window is directly across the
> street from Brennan's position. If the gunman had been firing from
> that window, Brennan's action would have been utterly futile....He
> would still have been in plain view. Therefore the gunman HAD to
> have been to the WEST of Brennan who was huddling down on the EAST
> side of the wall. The ONLY sixth floor window that was open to the
> west of Brennan was the WIDE OPEN window on the far WEST end of the
> sixth floor.
Not true, of course. Brennan says "this stone wall is a little
higher on the Houston side". Take a look at the stone end of the wall
that is in the foreground of the picyure. That likely where Brennan
took shelter, behind that. It is the high point of the wall.
That place even appears to be marked, possibly by Brennan.
Bud
He said he thought the guys on the 5th floor were standing also,
but it can be established they were kneeling. Brennan was mistaken
about whether they were standing, what makes it impossible he could
have been mistaken about the shooter on the 6th floor standing?
> On the window *sill*. Could a standing man rest his rifle on the
> sill, Walt? But, if the gunman was kneeling like the men on the 5th
> floor, Brennan could get the same mistaken impression of ...
>
>
> You are a liar...Brenan did NOT say "ON" the window sill.....
He doesn`t have to. The sill if the bottom of the window. Any
contact with the rifle to the sill has to be considered "on" it.
> Mr. Brennan.
> Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the
> left window sill, with ...
>
>
> Well, as it appeared to me he was STANDING UP
It appeared to him the guys on the 5th floor were standing also.
Appearances can be deceiving, it isn`t like he could see them from the
waist down to make this determination.
> and resting AGAINST
> the left window sill, ...
No matter how you slice it, the sill is bottom of the window. Can a
standing man have his rifle on the window sill and still take aim?
Makes more sense that the gunman was kneeling, like the 5th floor
guys, and he was mistaken about the 6th floor guy in the exact same
way it can be established he was mistaken about the 5th floor guys.
Bud
<SNIP>
> > > OK, offhand, I see you making the same stupid argument about
> > > Brennan seeing the man (Oz) standing, even though it has been pointed
> > > out to you numerous times that Brennan thought the black guys on the
> > > 5th floor were also standing, when in fact they were kneeling.
> >
> > > What he thought about the men on the fifth floor is irrelevant.....
> >
> > Yah, kooks usually find viewing information in the proper context
> > inconvenient.
> >
> Brennan KNEW the man was standing because he said the man was
> STANDING
> as he aimed the rifle out of the window.
He said he thought the guys on the 5th floor were standing also,
but it can be established they were kneeling. Brennan was mistaken
about whether they were standing, what makes it impossible he could
have been mistaken about the shooter on the 6th floor standing?
> On the window *sill*. Could a standing man rest his rifle on the
> sill, Walt? But, if the gunman was kneeling like the men on the 5th
> floor, Brennan could get the same mistaken impression of ...
>
>
> You are a liar...Brenan did NOT say "ON" the window sill.....
He doesn`t have to. The sill if the bottom of the window. Any
contact with the rifle to the sill has to be considered "on" it.
> Mr. Brennan.
> Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and resting against the
> left window sill, with ...
>
>
> Well, as it appeared to me he was STANDING UP
It appeared to him the guys on the 5th floor were standing also.
Appearances can be deceiving, it isn`t like he could see them from the
waist down to make this determination.
> and resting AGAINST
> the left window sill, ...
No matter how you slice it, the sill is bottom of the window. Can a
standing man have his rifle on the window sill and still take aim?
Makes more sense that the gunman was kneeling, like the 5th floor
guys, and he was mistaken about the 6th floor guy in the exact same
way it can be established he was mistaken about the 5th floor guys.
> Walt
<SNIP>
Walt
Aren't you the asshole who nit picks about Arnold Rowland describing
the rifle he saw in the hands of the gunman who was wearing a light
colored sport shirt with a collar, in the west end window, as a "high
powered" "Deer rifle". I said he was describing a hunting rifle and
most people people with common sense would also think a "deer rifle"
was a sporting rifle, or hunting rifle. But you carry on like a nut
and try to make it appear that Rowland was describing a military
rifle.
Fischer clearly said Quote .."I didn't want it to appear that... HE..
was dark"... Unquote. and if you insert the word he meant when he
said"dark" the sentence becomes ....I didn't want it to appear that..
HE.. was Black
But you're so damned dumb you can't read....
Walt
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rus...
Bud
Wasn`t my point at all. You were saying Rowland called the rifle he
saw a hunting rifle because of the barrel. Rowlans never said that,
that was a fabrication of yours. I tried to point out to you that
terms he used to describe the rifle (hi-powered, deer rifle, 30.06)
don`t do anything to narrow down what type of rifle he saw.
> Fischer clearly said Quote .."I didn't want it to appear that... HE..
> was dark"... Unquote. and if you insert the word he meant when he
> said"dark" the sentence becomes ....I didn't want it to appear that..
> HE.. was Black
Haired. That is what they were discussing, hair, not skin. You just
can`t read in context.
> But you're so damned dumb you can't read....
I understand perfectly what the discussion was about. Fischer said
in his affidavit the man he saw was white, why would he need to bring
up skin color in a discussion about hair color?
Walt
What a LIAR...... The arched ends at either end of the reflecting
pool were higher than the low curb that connected the two arched
ends..... But the end of the arch was no higher on the Houston street
side than the other end of the arch. Brennan said he dived to the
RIGHT RIGHT side of that wall, or the HOUSTON street side, which is
the EAST side. Don't you ever feel any shame for lying like
this??
Walt
Walt
Walt
I agree the sill is at the bottom of the window, but many people
don't know that. They call all of the wood trim around a widow the
"sill" Thus Brennan was referring to the Vertical sill on the left
side of the window. I'll admit that I did have a bit of a problem
with what Brennan meant by LEFT Side. Was he referring to his left
or the left end (west) of the building??
I believe he was referring to the left end of the building as "left".
Some other place in his testimony he indicates that left is toward the
west end of the building.
Walt
> <SNIP>
GeorgeWashingtonAdmirer
> Several witnesses saw a man on the sixth floor of the TSBD shortly
> before JFK's motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. The witnesses who were
> on the street outside of the TSBD saw the man up there in the windows
> of the sixth floor of the TSBD. All of the witnesses said the man
> they saw was dressed in light colored clothing. The witnesses were
> Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland, Ronald Fischer, and Bob Edwards.
> There were also a couple of others whose names escape me.
>
> ALL of the above witnesses said that the man they saw was dressed in
> "LIGHT COLORED" clothes. Some of them described the shirt the man was
> wearing as a light colored sport shirt with a collar. The shirt was
> described as open at the neck and unbuttoned about halfway down. A
> white T- shirt was seen beneath the light colored sport shirt. The
> light colored, button front sport shirt was described by the witnesses
> as "white", "dingy white", "light yellow", "khaki" and "light
> blue" ..... Whatever the exact color was it's obvious that the shirt
> was NOT the DARK reddish brown shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing that
> day.
Not that I believe it was him on the 6th floor that was seen, but none
other than E. Howard Hunt was known for wearing white suits during the
early-1960s, as per John Armstrong in his absorbing 2003 study "Harvey and
Lee." (
Who'd Hunt think he was, Tom Wolfe? :-)
Bud
I can`t be held accountable for your poor reading skills, I never
said a thing about any "arches". Brennan marked where he went to with
a "J" on CE 477. So, it`s a simple matter to find out where he went to
in that photo, right? You`ve done this, right?
Bud
<snicker> So your theory is that Brennan, a tradesman, doesn`t know
what a window sill is?
> They call all of the wood trim around a widow the
> "sill" Thus Brennan was referring to the Vertical sill on the left
> side of the window.
Lets see, what else does Brennan say about window sills? Ah, yah,
he says the guys on the 5th floor were leaning out their wondows with
their elbows on the window sills. He says " I thought they were
standing with their with their elbows on the window sill looking out."
So, you think Brennan is talking about the sides of the windows here,
Walt?
> I'll admit that I did have a bit of a problem
> with what Brennan meant by LEFT Side. Was he referring to his left
> or the left end (west) of the building??
It didn`t occur to you he meant what he said? The left side of the
sill?
Walt
Bennan was a steam fitter......not a carpenter.
They call all of the wood trim around a widow the
"sill" Thus Brennan was referring to the Vertical sill on the left
side of the window.
Lets see, what else does Brennan say about window sills? Ah, yah,
he says the guys on the 5th floor were leaning out their wondows with
their elbows on the window sills. He says " I thought they were
standing with their with their elbows on the window sill looking
out."
So, you think Brennan is talking about the sides of the windows here,
Walt?
Does the wood trim around the window include the top and bottom
horizontal pieces of the window sill?
I'll admit that I did have a bit of a problem
with what Brennan meant by LEFT Side. Was he referring to his left
or the left end (west) of the building??
It didn`t occur to you he meant what he said? The left side of the
sill?
Well hell yes I believed that he meant what he said...... You are the
one that seems to be having a problem comprehending what Brennan
said. He said the 30 to 35 year old, 165 to 175 pound man who was
wearing a white shirt and trousers, was STANDING UP and steadying the
rifle with a long exposed metal barrel against the vertical mullion
between the two windows, as he aimed the rifle out of a wide open
window.
Brennan said....."Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and
resting against the left window sill,
Dear dumbass.... The word "AGAINST" implies he was resting against a
VERTICAL surface.
Let's put it in context..... Here's his testimony
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.
Most people with good sense who can understand what they read, will
understand that Brennan said the man in the light colored sport shirt
that was open at the neck, was,.... STANDING UP...and steadying the
rifle against the mullion of the window. Brennan probably didn't
know the correct terminolgy for the vertical piece that divided the
window, so he called it a "sill". The fact that he used the word "
hisself" instead of the correct "himself" is an indication that
Brennan wasn't well educated.
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.
You really should take a reading comprehension course, Dud.... It
would be a real benefit to you. When you can comprehend a simple
sentence like ...."I didn't want it to appear that he was dark"....
Perhaps you won't keep making an ass of yourself because of your
inability to read.
Mr. Belin.
Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. Brennan.
I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a
high-powered rifle.
I'll admit that this description of the rifle is a bit vague, but
since Arnold Rowland used exactly that same term in describing that
same rifle, and then clarified what he meant by "high powered" by
saying it was a "deer rifle", it's pretty clear that the rifle was a
sporting rifle and not a military rifle.
I believe he was referring to the left end of the building as "left".
Some other place in his testimony he indicates that left is toward
the
west end of the building.
Walt
>
> > > <SNIP>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
wrote:
Hello GWA.... Are you aware that there is an indication that the hit
team were all dressed some what alike that day...
There is a strong possibity that the hit team were all dressed in
light colored, tan, or light yellow, khaki clothes.
There are many photos of men attired in khaki's acting suspictiously.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "There's NO evidence Oswald was in the furthest east 6th floor window, NONE!" <<<
>
> Yeah...only Brennan, Fischer, Edwards, Oswald's prints, Oswald's
> shells, Oswald's prints on that bag too...plus his rifle on the same
> floor, near the ONLY stairway (which Oz most certainly had to use to
> get downstairs).
>
> That's all.
>
> But that equals "no evidence" to the "ABO" kooks.
>
> (ABO="Anybody But Oswald".)
>
> I see that Healy is now gonna start licking Walt's asscrack now. Nice.
Psssst Von Pea Brain.....Brennan, Fischer, and Edwards, DID NOT
identify the DARK clothing clad Oswald, as the LIGHT clothing clad
gunman seen in the WEST end window of the sixth floor. The discovery
of evidence that a gunman "could" have fired a gun from a given
location does NOT identify that gunman. Prints in the area DO NOT
mean they were deposited at the time of the shooting,...And if those
prints are on objects that are easily transportable they are not even
proof that the prints were deposited while the objects containing the
prints were at the scene. A man carrying a box could easily leave his
prints on that box then the box could be moved into the "crime scene".
There was a rifle found that was similar to the Mannlicher Carcano
that Oswald was photographed holding in the Backyard photo, that
Oswald created, by having Marina take his picture with the guns and
communist newspapers. BUT...The rifle that was found was NOT the same
rifle that was photographed in Oswald's hands in CE 133A.
And as for the action you accused Dave Healey of...... I wouldn't
allow even you to perform such a disgusting act. I'd have no problem
with you doing that to Bud or Daffy or whomever you want......Hell you
could do it with a dog for all I care, but the fact that you would
post this shows just what a low life you are.
Walt
Bud
Thats why I called him a tradesman, and not a carpenter. He was in
the building trade.
> They call all of the wood trim around a widow the
> "sill" Thus Brennan was referring to the Vertical sill on the left
> side of the window.
>
> Lets see, what else does Brennan say about window sills? Ah, yah,
> he says the guys on the 5th floor were leaning out their wondows with
> their elbows on the window sills. He says " I thought they were
> standing with their with their elbows on the window sill looking
> out."
> So, you think Brennan is talking about the sides of the windows here,
> Walt?
>
> Does the wood trim around the window include the top and bottom
> horizontal pieces of the window sill?
The sill is only one part of the window, Walt, You can speculate
that Brennan meant the basement, or anywhere else your mind wanders
to, but the man said where the rifle he saw was. And a rifle could not
be held and aimed by a standing man if the rifle was resting on the
sill.
> I'll admit that I did have a bit of a problem
> with what Brennan meant by LEFT Side. Was he referring to his left
> or the left end (west) of the building??
>
> It didn`t occur to you he meant what he said? The left side of the
> sill?
>
> Well hell yes I believed that he meant what he said...... You are the
> one that seems to be having a problem comprehending what Brennan
> said. He said the 30 to 35 year old,
Quote Brennan saying the guman was 30-35 years old. Liar.
> 165 to 175 pound man who was
> wearing a white shirt and trousers,
Quote Brennan stating the gunman was wearing white clothes. Liar.
> was STANDING UP and steadying the
> rifle
And he thought the kneeling men on the 5th floor were standing also.
He was mistaken. A standing man could take aim from the window sill.
> with a long exposed metal barrel
Quote Brennan saying the rifle he saw had a long exposed metal
barrel. Liar.
>against the vertical mullion
> between the two windows,
He said "sill" Walt. That is the botton of the window.
> as he aimed the rifle out of a wide open
> window.
With the bottom sash all the way up, like those on the 5th floor.
> Brennan said....."Well, as it appeared to me he was standing up and
> resting against the left window sill,
>
> Dear dumbass.... The word "AGAINST" implies he was resting against a
> VERTICAL surface.
Yah, they do. And you can be against the left side, and still be on
the sill also, idiot.
> Let's put it in context..... Here's his testimony
>
> 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.
>
> Most people with good sense who can understand what they read, will
> understand that Brennan said the man in the light colored sport shirt
> that was open at the neck, was,.... STANDING UP...
But he also thought the guys on the fifth floor were standing up,
when actually they were kneeling. Hard to see the waist down from the
ground to determine standing from kneeling.
>and steadying the
> rifle against the mullion of the window.
Problem with that theory is he said "sill", not "mullion". You
can`t just change words because they are inconvenient to your kooky
theories.
> Brennan probably didn't
> know the correct terminolgy for the vertical piece that divided the
> window, so he called it a "sill".
But even an idiot like yourself knows the difference.
> The fact that he used the word "
> hisself" instead of the correct "himself" is an indication that
> Brennan wasn't well educated.
It means he`s a Texan, idiot. A lot of the problems you have with
the testimony is because you don`t understand the regional dialect.
> 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.
>
> You really should take a reading comprehension course, Dud.... It
> would be a real benefit to you. When you can comprehend a simple
> sentence like ...."I didn't want it to appear that he was dark"....
When the discussion is about hair color, only a idiot would be
thrown off by unspoken words.
> Perhaps you won't keep making an ass of yourself because of your
> inability to read.
Seems it`s me walking you through what these people said, and
explaining it to you.
> Mr. Belin.
> Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a
> high-powered rifle.
>
> I'll admit that this description of the rifle is a bit vague, but
> since Arnold Rowland used exactly that same term in describing that
> same rifle, and then clarified what he meant by "high powered" by
> saying it was a "deer rifle", it's pretty clear that the rifle was a
> sporting rifle and not a military rifle.
None of the information either of these men provided helps much
either to narrow down what type rifle was used, or exclude any type of
rifle as being used.
> I believe he was referring to the left end of the building as "left".
> Some other place in his testimony he indicates that left is toward
> the
> west end of the building.
His left would be the west end of the building. What ndid he say
about that end? certainly not that he saw a gunman on the west end,
only an idiot would think that.
Walt
Tecnically you're right... The sill is the bottom horizontal piece
beneath a window....but not everybody knows the proper terminology for
the wood trim that surrounds the window. Many people call the entire
window frame the window sill.
And a rifle could not be held and aimed by a standing man if the rifle
was resting on the sill.
That's right...... and since we KNOW the man was STANDING you are
wrong again.
How do we know the man in the light colored sport shirt, that was open
at the collar, was STANDING??
Well let's let Rowland and Brennan answer that question.
Here's what Arnold Rowlan said.......
Mr. Rowland.
We were discussing, as I stated, the different security precautions, I
mean it was a very important person who was coming and we were aware
of the policemen around everywhere, and especially in positions where
they would be able to watch crowds. We talked momentarily of the
incidents with Mr. Stevenson, and the one before that with Mr.
Johnson, and this being in mind we were more or less security
conscious. We looked and at that time I noticed on the sixth floor of
the building that there was a man back from the window, not hanging
out the window.
He was standing (STANDING )and holding a rifle, This appeared to me to
be a fairly high-powered rifle because of the scope and the relative
proportion of the scope to the rifle, you can tell about what type of
rifle it is. You can tell it isn't a .22, you know, and we thought
momentarily that maybe we should tell someone but then the thought
came to us that it is a security agent.
We had seen in the movies before where they have security men up in
windows and places like that with rifles to watch the crowds, and we
brushed it aside as that, at that time, and thought nothing else about
it until after the event happened.
Mr. Specter.
Now, by referring to the photograph on this Commission Exhibit No.
356, will you point to the window where you observed this man?
Mr. Rowland.
This was very odd. There were this picture was not taken immediately
after that, I don't think, because there were several windows, there
are pairs of windows, and there were several pairs where both windows
were open fully(BOTH WINDOWS WERE FULLY OPEN) and in each pair there
was one or more persons hanging out the window.
Yet this was on the west corner ( WEST CORNER) of the building, the
sixth floor, ( SIXTH FLOOR)the first floor--second floor down from the
top, the first was the arched, the larger windows, not the arch, but
the larger windows, and this was the only pair of windows where both
windows were completely open( COMPLETELY OPEN) and no one was hanging
out the windows, or next to the window.
It was this pair of windows here at that time.
Mr. Specter.
What is your best recollection as to how far each of those windows
were open?
Mr. Rowland.
To the fullest extent that they could be opened.
Mr. Specter.
What extent would that be?
Mr. Rowland.
Being as I looked half frame windows, that would be halfway of the
entire length of the window.
Mr. Specter.
In which of those double windows did you see the man and rifle?
Mr. Rowland.
It was through the window to my right.
Here's what Brennan said....
Mr. Brennan.
The man in the sixth story window.
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 (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.
Mr. Belin.
Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that window?
Mr. Brennan.
I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some type of a
high-powered rifle.
There's more clarification in Rowland's testimony, but most reasonable
people will know that the man in the light colored sport shirt with a
collar, was STANDING behind that WIDE OPEN WEST end windowand not
crouched or kneeling and resting the rifle ON the window sill.
Walt
Bud
I`ve never heard anyone refer to all four sides of a window the
"sill". But you may travel in stupider circles than i do.
> And a rifle could not be held and aimed by a standing man if the rifle
> was resting on the sill.
>
> That's right...... and since we KNOW the man was STANDING you are
> wrong again.
Actually, what we KNOW is that Brennan was mistaken about whether
the guys on the 5th floor were standing. He said they were, but they
weren`t. That makes it UNKNOWN whether he was correct about whether
the guy on the 6th floor was standing.
> How do we know the man in the light colored sport shirt, that was open
> at the collar, was STANDING??
>
> Well let's let Rowland and Brennan answer that question.
>
> Here's what Arnold Rowlan said.......
What Rowland says has no bearing to what Brennan observed
concerning standing/kneeling, because they both observed the man with
the gun (Oz) in different windows at different times.
Yah, thats what Rowland said. But that isn`t what Brennan said. He
said he saw the man in the east window.
>and not
> crouched or kneeling and resting the rifle ON the window sill.
>
> Walt
>
<SNIP>
Walt
Brennan said he saw the man who was wearing a light colored shirt in
the EAST window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Two other witnesses,
Fischer and Edwards, confirmed that Brennan had seen the man in the
east window BEFORE the motorcade arrived because they also saw the man
who was dressed in the light colored, sport shirt, with a collar,
behind that east end window also, BEFORE the motorcade arrived.
Fischer and Edwards said they could see only the head, chest, and
shoulders of the mans body. They thought he was sitting (NOT STANDING)
on a box behind the partly open window Brennan saw the man leave and
return to the window a couple of times. When the man sat on the window
sill of the wide open window on the WEST end of the sixth floor
Brennan could see all of the man from his hips to the top of his
head. When the gunman was firing the rifle from that west end window
Brennan could see all of the mans body from his waist to the top of
his head. Brennan could NOT have seen all of the mans body from his
waist to the top of his head if the man had been crouched down or
kneeling as you believe. Fischer and Edwards said only the head chest
and shoulders were visible when they saw the man behind the EAST end
window. You can see that with your own eyes by looking at
B.R.Williams kneeling in the 5th floor window in the Dillard photo.
Only the upper portion of his body is visible. Since both Rowland
and Brennan said they could see the mans trousers it's obvious that
they BOTH were describing the man as he STOOD behind the WEST end
window.
Walt
> >and not
> > crouched or kneeling and resting the rifle ON the window sill.
>
> > Walt
>
David Von Pein
>>> "Many people call the entire window frame the window sill." <<<
LOL.
That is pretty funny.
I've never, ever thought of calling the left, right, and top portions
of the FRAME of a window....a "sill".
Walt's getting desperate (again). As if he hasn't been forever anyway,
via his nutty "moving window" theory re. Brennan.
Or, I guess I could make a joke here, and cally Walt "sill-y". ;)
Seems to fit the "sill" talk here.
Walt
> Walt claims:
>
> >>> "Many people call the entire window frame the window sill." <<<
LOL.
That is pretty funny, Bud.
Funny?? A window sill is "funny"?? You are one weird asshole......
>
> I've never, ever thought of calling the left, right, and top portions
> of the FRAME of a window....a "sill".
What you or I know, isn't shared by everybody..... Simply because you
wouldn't call a high powered, deer rifle, with a long exposed metal
barrel a hunting rifle, doesn't mean that most folks wouldn't use the
terms "deer rifle", "high powered rifle", and "hunting rifle"
interchangably with "sporting rifle" All four terms can apply to
the same rifle. One person may call the rifle a "deer rifle" while
another person may call the same rifle a "hunting rifle" ......Most
hunting rifles have long exposed metal barrels .....and that's what
Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan were describing in the hands of the
gunman who was wearing a light colored, off white, sport shirt with a
collar. So simply because you never thought of calling a window frame
a window sill, doesn't mean many other people don't call the entire
frame a "sill"
Walt
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 4 Apr, 17:43, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Walt claims:
> >
> > >>> "Many people call the entire window frame the window sill." <<<
>
> LOL.
>
> That is pretty funny, Bud.
Why did you add my name onto DVP`s comment Walt?
And why aren`t the ">" appearing to differentiate what you write
from what you are responding to?
> Funny?? A window sill is "funny"?? You are one weird asshole......
I think his comment was directed at your assertion that all sides
of the window are referred to as the "sill" by some people.
> > I've never, ever thought of calling the left, right, and top portions
> > of the FRAME of a window....a "sill".
>
> What you or I know, isn't shared by everybody..... Simply because you
> wouldn't call a high powered, deer rifle, with a long exposed metal
> barrel a hunting rifle, doesn't mean that most folks wouldn't use the
> terms "deer rifle", "high powered rifle", and "hunting rifle"
> interchangably with "sporting rifle" All four terms can apply to
> the same rifle. One person may call the rifle a "deer rifle" while
> another person may call the same rifle a "hunting rifle" ......Most
> hunting rifles have long exposed metal barrels .....
And neither of these men said anything about a long exposed metal
barrel. It is just your imagination running wild again.
>and that's what
> Arnold Rowland and Howard Brennan were describing in the hands of the
> gunman who was wearing a light colored, off white, sport shirt with a
> collar.
Quote Brennan mentioning a collar.
> So simply because you never thought of calling a window frame
> a window sill, doesn't mean many other people don't call the entire
> frame a "sill"
Well, Walt meandered all over the place, but didn`t offer anything
to support his assertion that people call all four sides of a window
the "sill".
> Walt
David Von Pein
"rifles" in my prior post. I was only talking about "window sills".
David Von Pein
He didn't, Bud. That was me. It was a prior version of that post,
which I deleted. (And, as usual, people here seem to read these posts
off of OTHER servers besides the Google site itself. And the "deleted"
posts remain on other servers. I always just use THIS site itself to
read posts. But others don't. ~shrug~)
But the "Bud" reference was confusing. And I can't stand mistakes...so
it HAD to go. ;)
Sorry.
I'm always having to delete posts because of spelling errors, etc.
WHY can't Google allow simple "edits"??
<Arggh!>
Walt
> Nice job of changing topics, Walt-Kook. I wasn't talking about
> "rifles" in my prior post. I was only talking about "window sills".
My intention was not to change topics.... I wanted to make the point
that just because you and I don't call the entire window fram the
"sill"....many people do. ....and I think you know that but won't
admit it. I was attempting to show that some people call a hunting
rifle a 30 odd six. Or some folks call all bolt action rifles
"mausers".... Or some folks call all flavors of Soda pop "cokes"...
Just a few examples that come to mind.
Since the rifle analogy fits with the topic in general....Because
Arnold Rowland referred the the rifle in the hands of the gunman, who
was wearing the light colored sport shirt, in the WEST end window, as
a "deer rifle", I wanted to make the point that though you and I may
prefer a more correct terminology for the frame around a window, does
not mean that others won't call the entire frame a "sill"
Walt
David Von Pein
Name one.
If anyone DOES, for some reason, use the word "sill" to refer to
anything but the base of a window, they are dead-wrong (definition-
wise). .....
"SILL": 1: a horizontal piece (as a timber) that forms the lowest
member or one of the lowest members of a framework or supporting
structure: as a : the horizontal member at the base of a window. --
Merriam-Webster's
http://webster.com/dictionary/sill
>>> "Some people call a hunting rifle a 30 odd six." <<<
You mean "30-ought-six". Idiot.
guybann...@aol.com
> Hello GWA.... Are you aware that there is an indication that the hit
> team were all dressed some what alike that day...
>
> There is a strong possibity that the hit team were all dressed in
> light colored, tan, or light yellow, khaki clothes.
>
> There are many photos of men attired in khaki's acting suspictiously.
I can't say that in my 25+ years of study of the case I've seen the
claim you made re the conspirators possibly dressing alike. Even in
the photos of Dealey Plaza, taken at the time of the assassination,
which purport to show identifiable participants there's no indication
that they were dressed alike.
Provide a refernce for your claim and I'll check it out.
Thanks.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On Apr 2, 10:04 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Several witnesses saw a man on the sixth floor of the TSBD shortly
> > before JFK's motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. The witnesses who were
> > on the street outside of the TSBD saw the man up there in the windows
> > of the sixth floor of the TSBD. All of the witnesses said the man
> > they saw was dressed in light colored clothing. The witnesses were
> > Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland, Ronald Fischer, and Bob Edwards.
> > There were also a couple of others whose names escape me.
>
> > ALL of the above witnesses said that the man they saw was dressed in
> > "LIGHT COLORED" clothes. Some of them described the shirt the man was
> > wearing as a light colored sport shirt with a collar. The shirt was
> > described as open at the neck and unbuttoned about halfway down. A
> > white T- shirt was seen beneath the light colored sport shirt. The
> > light colored, button front sport shirt was described by the witnesses
> > as "white", "dingy white", "light yellow", "khaki" and "light
> > blue" ..... Whatever the exact color was it's obvious that the shirt
> > was NOT the DARK reddish brown shirt that Lee Oswald was wearing that
> > day.
>
> > colored shirt, "STANDING" and aiming a rifle out of a window that he
> > described as being wide open. The only window on the sixth floor that
> > was wide open at the time of the shooting was on the far west end.
> > Brennan was one of two witnesses who paid some attention to the man
> > wearing the light colored sport shirt. The other witness who focused
> > his attention on the man was Arnold Rowland, Both Brennan and Rowland
> > saw the man with a rifle, and that is what caused them to focus on
> > him. They both described the rifle as a rifle different than a
> > Mannlicher Carcano. Rowland recognized the rifle as a hunting rifle
> > merely said that he could see all of the barrel as the man aimed it
> > out of the window, which indicates the rifle had an exposed metal
> > an exposed metal barrel. The barrel of the MC was covered by the
> > wooden stock.
> > Arnold Rowland specifically said that he saw the man who was wearing
> > to 5 feet behind the wide open window on the far west end of the sixth
> > floor. Brennan never said the man was behind that window but he
> > DESCRBED that window in his testimony before the Warren
> > Commission.
> > Rowland, Fischer, and Edwards only described the man's shirt, either
> > didn't see his trousers or didn't pay any attention to his trousers,
> > to be a "little lighter in color" than the man's shirt. Oswald was
> > wearing DARK gray trousers at the time of the shooting.
>
> > Fischer and Edwards saw the man wearing the light colored sport shirt
> > "among the boxes behind the window at the EAST end of the building
> > BEFORE the motorcade arrived, if they saw a rifle in the man's hands
> > they never reported that. Howard Brennan also saw the man behind
> > that east end window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan said he saw
> > the man leave and return to the window a couple of times. Fisher and
> > Edwards saw the man in the EAST end window, and said he appeared to be
> > sitting on a box or something because they could only see the upper
> > portion ( head, shoulders and chest ) of the man. They said the window
> > was not fully open.
>
> > Howard Brennan, was about seventyfive feet closer to the gunman when
> > he was behind the WEST end window than Arnold Rowland, described the
> > physical characteristics of the man wearing the light colored
> > clothing. Brennan said the gunman appeared to be in his early
> > thirties, and he weighed about 165 to 175 pounds. Oswald had just
> > celebrated his 24th birthday and his booking sheet lists his weight as
> > 140 pounds.
>
> > It's should be obvious to any openminded person that the White
> > clothing clad gunman was NOT Lee Oswald.
>
> > Walt
>
> Todd
>
> Do you allow for the possibility, howvere remote that you might think
> it is, that it was Oswald they saw and he had taken off his long
> sleeved shirt and was clad only in his t-shirt, an old dingy one at
> that, with a worn and stretched collar?
>
Doubt. He would have attracted a lot *more* attention wandering
around Dealey "clad only in his t-shirt" Certainly, he would have
been more proper, & worn *socks*, too....
dw
> Todd
>
> Todd- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> \\
Seriously, DVP broached a supposition re this a while back. O, in
window, is wearing T shirt, no overshirt. Shoots. Puts on dark long-
sleeved shirt to throw people off the track. Baker sees O on 2nd
floor in that darker shirt. O now tries to throw Baker & Truly off
the track, & , in the lunchroom, after they leave, he takes off his
overshirt. Goes into next room, & Mrs Reid sees him in T shirt, no
overshirt. Now, to throw *her* off the track, he puts back on his
overshirt as he goes down stairs & exits. Mrs Bledsoe sees him. To
throw *her* off the track, he puts on 2 jackets which his clothing
accomplice the bus driver hands him. Cabbie Whaley picks up him, puts
him down, puzzles over y O would be wearing 2 jackets. Mrs Roberts
sees O enter wearing 2 jackets, leave wearing one, but no T shirt, no
overshirt, just a jacket. He shoots Tippit, drops jacket in funeral
home parking lot, enters Texas theatre stirruptitiously, with *no*
shirt*. Everyone is duly confused, O gets away scot free & is living
large & shirtless in Argentina now....
dw
PS The moral of this story: Never enter a theatre scared shirtless
Walt
I could do that but you'll need a good library, because the photos are
published in many different books.
On page 68 of TKOAP at the bottom of the page there is a photo of a
man in dressed in khaki picking up "something" in the area where a
bullet had struck and made a furrow in the grass on the south side of
Elm street. The same man can be seen in pictures on page 498 and 499
of POTP. He appears to be Dressed like a Taxi driver, or Bus
driver.....He is wearing a disc type cap. This is just one of
several.
Walt
Walt
Don, I believe you've bent yer elbow a few too many times...... How
about gettin some sleep........... and then postin the stuff about
Oswald seeing N and J pass the lunchroom at about 12:25.
I posted a thread titled, "Dougherty was there--- Oswald was not",
that could use your input....
Walt
>
>
>
> > Todd- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain.... I didn't say "I" called a 30.06 ( thirty aught
six) a thirty ODD six....I said "some" people do.
Just as I said some people call the entire frame around a
window ..."the sill"
Arnold Rowland was one of those people who called a high powered
hunting rifle a "THIRTY ODD SIX "
Mr. Specter.
Can you describe the rifle with any more particularity than you
already have?
Mr. Rowland.
No. In proportion to the scope it appeared to me to be a .30-odd size
6, a deer rifle with a fairly large or powerful scope.
Mr. Specter.
When you say, .30-odd-6, exactly what did you mean by that?
Mr. Rowland.
That is a rifle that is used quite frequently for deer hunting. It is
an import.
Mr. Specter.
Do you own any rifles?
Mr. Rowland.
No; my stepfather does.
Mr. Specter.
Have you ever gone hunting deer with such a rifle?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes; I have.
Mr. Specter.
And is that a .30-odd-6 rifle that you have hunted deer with?
Mr. Rowland.
Yes.
I'm so glad that you felt compelled to correct me, becuse you just
shit in yer own mess-kit.
Arnold Rowland was giving testimony about seeing the gunman who was
dressed in a light colored sport shirt that had a collar and was
unbuttoned aboyt half way. This gunman was STANDING in the WEST end
window and he was holding a HUNTING rifle with a scope. Rowland
referred to the rifle as a "deer rifle" and a THIRTY ODD SIX. ( Eat
yer words asshole)
Rowland DESCRIBED a HUNTING or SPORTING rifle which have long exposed
metal barrels. He was NOT describing a MILITARY rifle like a
Mannlicher Carcano that have wood covering the barrel to protect the
soldier from being burned by a hot barrel.
I'm sure you know that the official lie is that the murder weapon was
a MILITARY rifle with a Mannlicher style stock that covered all but 5
inches of the metal barrel. Neither Rowland nor Howard Brennan
described a MILITARY rifle, they both described the rifle in the hands
of the man who obviously was NOT le Oswald as a exposed barrel hunting
rifle.
Walt
Walt
"Just because you and I don't call the entire window fram the
"sill"....many people do." <<<
Name one.
Herbert Gonzowitz...... Ask him .
Walt
David Von Pein
fully expected your post debunking what I knew you'd attempt
(successfully) to debunk re. my 30-odd-6 "idiot" remark.
But I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to use the word "idiot" in
another post to you, Walt. Even though you were correct (this time).
Sorry. I got carried away.
You want to use your "30-odd-6" on me now? I deserve it. ;)
David Von Pein
Who's Herb?
A window-sill salesman perhaps?
Or should that officially be: A "latticework" salesman? ;)
I'd better not get Walt started on latticework, huh? That'll dredge up
thoughts of Edwin Walker. And who needs that kettle of mackerel?
Walt's got enough on his plate trying to get somebody to accept his
make-believe scenario about Brennan seeing a gunman at the west end of
the TSBD. ;)
Walt
Ol Herb wears a size 54 jacket and a size 5 1/2 cap .....Herb ain't
real smart but he's tough as a bull. I'd treat him wth respect if I
were you. If he tells you the frame around a window is called a sill,
you'd be wise to say... " Hell yeah Herb, everybody knows that "
Anybody who really wants the facts can read the testimonies of
Brennan, Rowland, Fischer, and Edwards and see for themselves that the
gunman on the sixth floor was dressed in a light colored, off white,
sport shirt, with a button front and a collar. That gunman was in the
WEST end window, and he had a hunting rifle with a scope in his
hands.
This man could NOT have been Lee oswald who was dressed in a dark
colored reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers.
Walt
David Von Pein
Can't teach an old dog....
you know...
Walt
Hey Pea Brain ...... I know yer a slow learner, but I think it's
starting to sink in, that an old dog can still learn new tricks, and
more important....... he can bite.
Walt
Walt
> On 2 Apr, 13:54, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 2, 2:21 pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Apr, 12:16, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 2, 9:53 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 Apr, 11:41, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 2, 10:47 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 2 Apr, 09:09, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Apr 2, 10:04 am, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Several witnesses saw a man on the sixth floor of the TSBD shortly
> > > > > > > > > before JFK's motorcade arrived in Dealey Plaza. The witnesses who were
> > > > > > > > > on the street outside of the TSBD saw the man up there in the windows
> > > > > > > > > of the sixth floor of the TSBD. All of the witnesses said the man
> > > > > > > > > they saw was dressed in light colored clothing. The witnesses were
> > > > > > > > > Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland, Ronald Fischer, and Bob Edwards.
> > > > > > > > > There were also a couple of others whose names escape me.
>
> > > > > > > > > ALL of the above witnesses said that the man they saw was dressed in
> > > > > > > > > "LIGHT COLORED" clothes. Some of them described the shirt the man was
> > > > > > > > > wearing as a light colored sport shirt with a collar. The shirt was
> > > > > > > > > described as open at the neck and unbuttoned about halfway down. A
> > > > > > > > > light colored, button front sport shirt was described by the witnesses
> > > > > > > > > thirties, and he weighed about 165 to 175 pounds. Oswald had just
> > > > > > > > > celebrated his 24th birthday and his booking sheet lists his weight as
> > > > > > > > > 140 pounds.
>
> > > > > > > > > It's should be obvious to any openminded person that theWhite
>
> > > > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > > Todd
>
> > > > > > > > Do you allow for the possibility, howvere remote that you might think
> > > > > > > > it is, that it was Oswald they saw and he had taken off his long
> > > > > > > > sleeved shirt and was clad only in his t-shirt, an old dingy one at
> > > > > > > > that, with a worn and stretched collar?
>
> > > > > > > > Todd
>
> > > > > > > thread, because that idea has been considered and destroyed. It's
> > > > > > > fairly easy to verify that the witnesses who saw the man wearing the
> > > > > > > light colored shirt were DESCRIBING a light colored sport shirt with a
> > > > > > > button front and a collar, NOT a T-shirt. I'm not going to post those
> > > > > > > testimonies again, you can check them for yourself..... just read
> > > > > > > through the J.D. @12:30 thread.
>
> > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > Walt,
>
> > > > > > "Destroyed"?
>
> > > > > > Are you smoking crack?
>
> > > > > Don't be a smartass....unless you want treatment in kind
>
> > > > > > You're not telling everyone the whole story, are you?
>
> > > > > Do you know something I've ommitted?
>
> > > > > > Fischer told the Warren Commission the following:
>
> > > > > > "And he had--he had on an open-neck shirt, but it-uh--could have been
> > > > > > a sport shirt or a T-shirt. It was light in color; probablywhite, I
> > > > > > couldn't tell whether it had long sleeves or whether it was a short-
> > > > > > sleeved shirt, but it was open-neck and light in color."
>
> > > > > > He clearly said it could have been a T-shirt.
>
> > > > > One witness.... who said it "COULD" have been a T-shirt. We can know
> > > > > what he wasn't sure of, by reading what the other witnesses said.
>
> > > > > > ONLY Rowland, whose credibilty is up for grabs, said it was a open
> > > > > > neck shirt with a t-shirt underneath.
>
> > > > > Why is Rowland's credibility "up for grabs"..... Is it because it
> > > > > destoys the imagined scenario that Oswald fired from the East end
> > > > > window?
>
> > > > horrors upon horrors, Oswald fired from the west end of the 6th
> > > > floor... if that's the case, the Myers animation is fucked up which
> > > > means the Zapruder film is altered and the SBT is fraud..... talk
> > > > about a house of cards.....
>
> > > Thank You Dave.....now THAT'S what I'm talkin about!
>
> > > The FACT that there was awhiteclothing cladgunmanseen in the WEST
> > > end window of the TSBD AT THE TIME of the shooting absolutely and
> > > utterly destroys the Warren Commissions decree.
>
> > No witness places agunmanin the west end window at the time of the
> > shooting.
>
> > > The lyin bastards
> > > recognize this fact and they are desperate to discredit it. In their
> > > desperation they are grasping at straws, and attempting to change the
> > > meaning of words ( shades of Slick Willie Clinton) they are reduced to
> > > askin really stupid questions like ..."What is the definition of the
> > > colorWHITE"??
>
> > I've never seen anyone here ask for the definition ofwhite.
>
> > > Howard Brennan not only described the color of the shirt of man in the
> > > WEST end window he also said that the man was wearing trousers that
> > > were a "LITTLE BIT LIGHTER " in color than the man's shirt. None of
> > > the Lyin Bastards ever acknowledge that Brennan said thegunmanwas
> > > wearingWHITEtrousers.
>
> > Sure he said that. But could he have been mistaken?
>
> No I don't think he was mistaken ....He seems pretty confident about
> the color of the gunmans clothes.
> Here's what he said:
>
> Mr. Belin.
> All right.
> Could you see the man's trousers at all?
> Do you remember any color?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
> the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I
> called their attention to at the lineup.
> Mr. Belin.
> What do you mean by that?
> Mr. Brennan.
> That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
> window.
> Mr. Belin.
> You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
> Mr. Brennan.
> Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the
> same clothes on.
> Mr. Belin.
> All right.
>
> Doesn't sound like he wasn't sure that thegunmanwas wearingwhite
> trousers.
>
> and he very clearly says that Oswald did NOT look like thegunmanand
> one reason he did NOT look like thegunmanwas because.... " he
> ( Oswald) just didn't have the same clothes on."
So now the LNer's are going to have to assign yet annother time
consuming task for Oswald to perform in the alloted 90 seconds between
the shots and the lunchroom encounter. How long would it have taken
Lee to take off the white trousers and put on his dark gray ones??
Walt
>
> Even a stupid LNer ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -