An eyewitness description of the TSBD gunman
Walt
Brennan's testimony was the key eyewitness account used in finding
that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of murdering President Kennedy.
Brennan said that the man he saw aiming a rifle out of an upper story
window was 30 to 35 years old, weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, and
was wearing LIGHT colored clothing. Oswald had just turned 24 years
old, he weighed 140 pounds ( according to his booking sheet ) and he
was wearing a reddish brown shirt and dark colored trousers at the
time of the assassination.
In addition to giving a physical description of a gunman who obviously
wasn't Oswald, Brennan described a shooting postion that obviously was
NOT the so called "Snipers Nest".
Here's an excerpt from Brennan's testimony.....
Mr. Belin: Would you describe just exactly what you saw the last time
you saw him? ( The 33 year old man in the light colored clothing)
HB: Well it appeared that he was STANDING up and resting against the
left window sill, with the gun shouldered to his right shoulder,
holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim he fired
his last shot....
Mr. Belin: Well let me ask you. What kind of gun did you see in the
window?
HB: I am not an expert on guns. It was as I could observe some kind
of high powered rifle.
Mr. Belin: Could you tell whether it had any kind of scope on it?
Could you tell whether it had or not it had one? Could you observe
that it definitely did, or did not, or don't you know?
HB: I do not know if it had a scope or not.
Mr. Belin: At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much
of the man could you see?
HB: Well I could see... at the time he was firing the gun, from his
belt up....
Mr. Belin: How much of the gun do you believe you saw?
HB: I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
How does this eyewitness account fit with the W.C. finding that Oswald
murdered JFK by firing a rifle while SITTING on a box and resting the
rifle on a box on the window ledge?
First off...Oswald was younger, lighter weight, and wore darker colored
clothes than the gunman.
Secondly.... Brennan said the man was standing ( he could see from his
belt up) and steadying the rifle against the side of the window. He
could see almost the entire rifle ( 70 to 85 percent) and he didn't
remember seeing a scope on the rifle. If the gunman's rifle had been
equipped with a scope, Brennan would surely have seen it.... The fact
that Brennan didn't remember seeing a scope, is a strong indication
that the gunman didn't have a scope on his rifle. ( Which makes sense,
because a scope is a hindrance when firing at a target at close
range. )
bail...@gmail.com
Firstly, due to his receding hairline, Oswald looked much older than
24! Next, whether Brennan saw the weapon with or without a scope is
absolutely unimportant. There is NO proof Oswald used a scope in the
killing. From a distance of 88 yards, a Marine Sharpshooter (which
Oswald was) easily could have used the sites. In addition, when the
weapon was found, the scope was NOT on the MC. So, I ask once again,
what is the point of this? Has this NOT been discussed over and over
and over again for 43 years?? I just don't get you CT's. You rehash
the same evidence year after year, never introducing ANYTHING showing
what you claim to be a conspiracy and yet expect people to applaud
your efforts. CT's for years have tried EVERYTHING to discredit
Howard Brennan. Fortunately, CT's as expected have failed miserably.
Walt
> Let's dissect these comments.
>
> Firstly, due to his receding hairline, Oswald looked much older than
> 24!
I disagree..... Oswald looked to be in his mid twenties.....which he
was.
Next, whether Brennan saw the weapon with or without a scope is
> absolutely unimportant.
No it's NOT "unimportant"..... It could be very important if it could
be verified that the gunman's rifle did NOT have a scope as Brennan's
testimony suggests. ....but the point is moot, because we can't prove
it either pro or con.
There is NO proof Oswald used a scope in the killing.
That's true.....in FACT there's no proof that Oswald did the killing.
From a distance of 88 yards, a Marine Sharpshooter (which
> Oswald was) easily could have used the sites.
His MC records show he fired "Marksman"......Which isn't very good....
I'd guess he was a "flincher". and it's very difficult for a natural
flincher to fire accurately.
In addition, when the
> weapon was found, the scope was NOT on the MC.
REALLY??? Then please explain all of the photos taken inside the
TSBD as the rifle was pulled from beneath the pile of boxes which
CLEARLY SHOW a scope MOUNTED ON to a model 91/38 Mannlicher Carcano.
So, I ask once again,
> what is the point of this?
The "point" being discussed is not the one under your hat...... The
point is The Warren Report is a pile of crap and it can be proved to
be a pile of crap by comparing the "findings" of the Warren Commission
against the actual records.
Has this NOT been discussed over and over
> and over again for 43 years?? I just don't get you CT's. You rehash
> the same evidence year after year, never introducing ANYTHING showing
> what you claim to be a conspiracy and yet expect people to applaud
> your efforts.
Ah contrair Mansewer.... The Ct's have attempted to introduce you to
a lot of evidence....but you refuse to even look at the evidence. You
just wail...."Get outta here, can't you see I've got my head in my
ass, and I don't want to see any of your evidence".
CT's for years have tried EVERYTHING to discredit
> Howard Brennan.
Oh no Senor......quite the contrary.... I believe that on the day of
the murder, Howard Brennan was a good honest citizen who truly wanted
to help the cops apprehend the killers. He KNEW they had the wrong
man in Oswald and tried his best to tell the cops that Oswald was NOT
the man he saw in the TSBD. He KNEW the real killer was NOT Oswald
and he KNEW the real killer was still on the loose. Once Oswald was
dead he felt no obligation to defend Oswald against false charges.
Nor did he think it wise to keep himself and his family in danger by
making continuing to say he could identify the real killer if he ever
saw him again.
Fortunately, CT's as expected have failed miserably.
We agree on this point.....
Walt
> > range. )- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bail...@gmail.com
in error. Oswald qualifed as a Marine Sharpshooter. This meant he
was qualified to hit an 8 inch target 8 out of 10 times from 200
yards.....using only sites.
Documentation avaialble. Any and all of pictures of Oswald in
captivity show him to "appear" older than his actual 24 years.
CT's of course dispute this. You say there is no proof Oswald did the
shooting. Wrong again. While nobody can say with 100% certainty that
Oswald pulled the trigger, we can say with 99.9% certainly based on
the physical evidence in this case, Oswald killed JFK. If you
disagree with this, then your knowledge of the Scientific Method is
completely lacking as is your critical thinking skills. The physical
evidence in this case points to only Oswald and nobody else. While I
agree there are discrepancies in the investigation as well as the
Warrent Report the difference betwee me and you is.....you find
everything sinister. You look for conspiracy where none exists. This
explains why you people do the same things over and over for 43 years
and get no place. It's all been done before.
> On Jan 30, 12:52 pm, bailey...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Let's dissect these comments.
>
> > Firstly, due to his receding hairline, Oswald looked much older than
> > 24!
>
> I disagree..... Oswald looked to be in his mid twenties.....which he
> was.
>
> Next, whether Brennan saw the weapon with or without a scope is
>
> > absolutely unimportant.
>
> No it's NOT "unimportant"..... It could be very important if it could
> be verified that the gunman's rifle did NOT have a scope as Brennan's
> testimony suggests. ....but the point is moot, because we can't prove
> it either pro or con.
>
> There is NO proof Oswald used a scope in the killing.
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Jan 30, 2:47 pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote: You are
> in error. Oswald qualifed as a Marine Sharpshooter. This meant he
> was qualified to hit an 8 inch target 8 out of 10 times from 200
> yards.....using only sites.
His buddy Nelson Degado said Oswald fired marksman which is
unacceptable by MC standards...so they fudged his records. .....to
make it appear he had fired "sharpshooter'.
> Documentation avaialble. Any and all of pictures of Oswald in
> captivity show him to "appear" older than his actual 24 years.
> CT's of course dispute this. You say there is no proof Oswald did the
> shooting. Wrong again.
WHOA!!!! Hold it right there Beetle! PROVE.... I say PROVE that
Oswald did the shooting.
While nobody can say with 100% certainty that
> Oswald pulled the trigger, we can say with 99.9% certainly based on
> the physical evidence in this case, Oswald killed JFK.
WHOA!! Damn you WHOA!..... Your merely mouthing yer beliefs.... I
don't accept your bible as gospel as you do. Your bible may say a
frog can fly, and you may believe that.....but that's not PROOF that a
frog can fly.
You believe your bible offers solid evidence that Oswald was the
killer.....My common sense rejects that just as I reject the idea that
a frog can fly.
If you
> disagree with this, then your knowledge of the Scientific Method is
> completely lacking as is your critical thinking skills.
Well, that is one point in favor of accepting the Warren Report as
gospel..... Critical thinking skills are not necessary. Just believe
the book written by a bunch of shady Lawyers and shyster politicians.
The physical
> evidence in this case points to only Oswald and nobody else.
Only a person unfamiliar with the evidence would make such an assinine
statement
While I
> agree there are discrepancies in the investigation as well as the
> Warrent Report the difference betwee me and you is.....you find
> everything sinister. You look for conspiracy where none exists. This
> explains why you people do the same things over and over for 43 years
> and get no place. It's all been done before.
Well, some cynic's say there is nothing new under the sun.... It's all
been done before.
As far as I know, physical matter has never been teleported through
space..... but I'll wager it will be done some day.
bail...@gmail.com
You are the very reason I hold CT's in such contempt. You people
don't have a clue, not a clue what the evidence in this case means.
Question Walt? What do YOU know about Oswald, his life, his beliefts,
his motive, his behavior throughout 1963? Regarding this comment you
made:
His buddy Nelson Degado said Oswald fired marksman which is
> unacceptable by MC standards...so they fudged his records. .....to
> make it appear he had fired "sharpshooter'.
This comment is so assinine as to be unbelievable. But hey, that's
what CT's do.
You believe your bible offers solid evidence that Oswald was the
> killer.....My common sense rejects that just as I reject the idea that
> a frog can fly.
Your common sense??? You reject EVERY single piece of evidence
pointing to Oswald and YOU CLIAM TO HAVE COMMON
SENSE???????????????????
Well, that is one point in favor of accepting the Warren Report as
> gospel..... Critical thinking skills are not necessary. Just believe
> the book written by a bunch of shady Lawyers and shyster politicians.
>
Walt, like Nutsacks you're apparently not a terribly educated
individual and so there is no point in attempting to speak with you as
an adult. Go live in your little world of fantasy and conspiracy and
leave the case to those capable of thought and reasoning. This
unfortunately doesn't include you.
tomnln
New Addition to website page.
The Reason WHY bailey never discusses Evidence/Testimony.
Every time he attemptr to he makes a FOOL of himself.
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170183156.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
No wonder he never wants to address evidence/testimony.
He'll NEVER address this one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170183156.6...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> On Jan 30, 3:34 pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote: Walt?
> You are the very reason I hold CT's in such contempt.
Thank you for the compliment.... It's nice to know that I've got such
a lofty position as to be the VERY reason that the Warren Commission
apologists are squirming like a bunch of maggots from a kicked over
meadow muffin.
You people don't have a clue, not a clue what the evidence in this
case means.
Oh really??
> Question Walt? What do YOU know about Oswald, his life, his beliefts,
> his motive, his behavior throughout 1963?
Try me........ask a specific question.
Regarding this comment you
> made:
>
> His buddy Nelson Degado said Oswald fired marksman which is
>
> > unacceptable by MC standards...so they fudged his records. .....to
> > make it appear he had fired "sharpshooter'.
>
> This comment is so assinine as to be unbelievable. But hey, that's
> what CT's do.
Delgado was there.....were you??
>
> You believe your bible offers solid evidence that Oswald was the
>
> > killer.....My common sense rejects that just as I reject the idea that
> > a frog can fly.
>
> Your common sense??? You reject EVERY single piece of evidence
> pointing to Oswald and YOU CLIAM TO HAVE COMMON
> SENSE???????????????????
Oh no I don't reject them all.....there are a couple of points that
could support the notion that Oswald ordered the rifle, but that
doesn't mean it was his, or that he used it to kill JFK,...But he
(MAY?) have ordered that rifle.
> Well, that is one point in favor of accepting the Warren Report as
>
> > gospel..... Critical thinking skills are not necessary. Just believe
> > the book written by a bunch of shady Lawyers and shyster politicians.
>
> Walt, like Nutsacks you're apparently not a terribly educated
> individual
Yer right....I'm not a "terribly" educated individual....... I'm a
"well "educated individual
Walt
> > > > > > could see almost the entire rifle ( 70 to 85 percent) and he didn't- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more ยป
Gil Jesus
In addition, when the weapon was found, the scope was NOT on the
MC.
Gil Jesus: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ...Wow you must like the taste of toes cuz
you just put your foot in your mouth, little man. You REALLY don't
know WTF you're talking about.
WOW.
bail...@gmail.com
Jesus? You are obviously a neophye at this assassination research
stuff so I have a suggestion for you. Before making a total fool out
of yourself, do a little research. Don't depend on your CT buddies
for information. They typically will know less than you do. So, I'll
say it for you again. The scope was NOT on the MC when it was found.
It was laying alongside the weapon. Now little Jesus, go do some
homework and let's see what kind of man you are as to whether you'll
admit how wrong you are. Considering what you've written on this
forum, you haven't been right about anything yet. Candidly, I don't
believe you're half the man your wife is.
David Von Pein
C2766 when found in the TSBD. It was definitely attached. ....
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170212220.7...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
You make Every LN's look like Assholes as well as I do.
http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
<bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170214410.7...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Right on Top. http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
I Love using Liars own words.
baileynme/spiffy's Lies are SO Blatant that even his own Tean disagrees with
him.
http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
bailey FEARS This one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170217142....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...