A Tale Of Two Guns -- Both Of Them Oswald's
David Von Pein
It requires NO "presuppositions" in point of fact.
Why?
Because the physical evidence left behind by the murder weapon TELLS
US
that Oswald's rifle (crappy as it may have been) was the ONLY weapon
that fired any bullets that hit anyone in JFK's car on 11/22.
Similar to the useless CT arguments re. the Tippit murder (that
argument being: Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th St. in time to
shoot Tippit) .... a similar type of CT argument proves to be totally
useless and moot with respect to the JFK murder weapon as well (with
that invalid CT argument being: Oswald's rifle could not possibly have
been the gun used to kill JFK because it was a rusty, defective,
mis-aligned POS that only cost $21.45).
Neither of the above arguments is worth a hill of beans ... because of
OTHER HARD EVIDENCE that trumps both CT arguments 100%.
There is still, to this day, ZERO hunks of physical ballistics
evidence
that indicates any weapon other than Oswald's M-C rifle hit anyone on
Nov. 22nd.
Which, therefore, still indicates to this day that if a multi-gun
conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza (as virtually all CTers believe),
there was a wide-sweeping, comprehensive, grab-every-non-LHO-bullet
cover-up job performed by XX number of conspirators after the fact --
including the EXTRA, unexpected task of getting rid of XX number of
bullets that hit a person (JBC) other than the intended target.
And these plotters did it all just perfectly, per most CT accounts,
even though Connally and Kennedy could very well have had XX number of
missiles stuck inside them when they arrived at Parkland.*
* = And they DID have multiple NON-OSWALD bullets inside them too, per
CT accounts of events --- e.g., JFK's neck bullet, caused by some
oddball low-powered weapon....plus JFK's back-wound bullet, again
caused by a low-powered weapon evidently, since it only goes into him
a
couple of inches; these wounds make NO sense from the assassins' POV,
because why on Earth would any pro assassins shoot TWO dum-dum type of
non-fatal bullets at the target; that's pure stupidity....plus the XX
number of bullets that CTers say pelted Gov. Connally, which were all
never seen by any non-plotters either.
The "hide-the-bullets-before-somebody-gets-wise" plot only gets
sillier
and sillier the more any logical person thinks about it.
But the LHO/LN/3-Shot scenario fits perfectly, to a tee, right down
the
line -- from the TSBD evidence (rifle/shells), to the fragments inside
the limo, to the witness testimony, to the SBT alignment, to CE399, to
the autopsy report, and to the fact that NO OTHER BULLETS were found
anyplace that could be connected with the victims' wounds.
And to think that this amount of LHO-hanging stuff could have possibly
ALL been "faked" and/or "arranged" by evil plotters after the fact in
such a short time period is to believe in magic (literally).
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "People get lucky, but what I am saying is that your scenario requires as many, or more, presuppositions as most CTs." <<<
>
> It requires NO "presuppositions" in point of fact.
How about more detail on what this "ghost" poster is talking about?
>
> Why?
>
> Because the physical evidence left behind by the murder weapon TELLS
> US that Oswald's rifle (crappy as it may have been) was the ONLY weapon
> that fired any bullets that hit anyone in JFK's car on 11/22.
Which weapon are we talking about? The Mauser? The Springfield .303? A
Mannlicher-Schoenauer? A Mannlicher-Carcano?
>
> Similar to the useless CT arguments re. the Tippit murder (that
> argument being: Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th St. in time to
> shoot Tippit) .... a similar type of CT argument proves to be totally
> useless and moot with respect to the JFK murder weapon as well (with
> that invalid CT argument being: Oswald's rifle could not possibly have
> been the gun used to kill JFK because it was a rusty, defective,
> mis-aligned POS that only cost $21.45).
He couldn't since JDT was killed no later than 1:06 PM. It shouldn't
have been all those things (the rifle) because the gun had been
rennovated prior to shipment (true, it sat for 28 months in a
warehouse), so it shouldn't have been so bad off in terms of the scope
not being secure and the desintergrating firing pin. I mean all it
did was sit in a blanket most of the time, right?
>
> Neither of the above arguments is worth a hill of beans ... because of
> OTHER HARD EVIDENCE that trumps both CT arguments 100%.
Sure. Let's see this "hard evidence".
>
> There is still, to this day, ZERO hunks of physical ballistics
> evidence that indicates any weapon other than Oswald's M-C rifle hit anyone on
> Nov. 22nd.
Of course not since they didn't test any other. Also, you keep making
the claim of the Carcano being Oswald's, but the last time I read the
WCR I couldn't find any real evidence it was his. So even *if you
could* link the ammo to the killing you still can't prove LHO fired it
or owned the gun in the first place.
>
> Which, therefore, still indicates to this day that if a multi-gun
> conspiracy existed in Dealey Plaza (as virtually all CTers believe),
> there was a wide-sweeping, comprehensive, grab-every-non-LHO-bullet
> cover-up job performed by XX number of conspirators after the fact --
> including the EXTRA, unexpected task of getting rid of XX number of
> bullets that hit a person (JBC) other than the intended target.
No there wasn't, there was a "we don't give a f**k attitude" if it
didn't make LHO look bad. Let's look at a few samples of bullets and
or cases found and turned in, shall we?
1) The Barbee Speciman: This intact bullet was found embedded in the
roof of a building located at 1615 Stemmons Freeway by William Barbee
in the summer of 1966. The building, which was located about a 1/4 of
a mile from the TSBD, happened to be in the line of fire where LHO
allegedly shot. Mr. Barbee turned the bullet over to the FBI in
December 1967, when current publicity over the assassination caused
him to wonder if this bullet might be relevant evidence. The FBI
determined the bullet to be a .30 caliber full metal jacketed bullet.
Its rifling pattern of 4 grooves, right hand twist was the same as
that produced by the U.S. governement .30 carbine. The FBI took little
interest in this bullet once it was determined it came from a gun
other than LHO's. Apparently the thought of a second gunman was never
entertained.
2) The Haythorne Speciman: The second piece of evidence was a bullet
found in 1967 on top of the Massey bldg. by Rich Haythorne, a roofer
doing work on that bldg. The Massey bldg. is about 8 blocks away from
the TSBD in the 1200 block of Elm St. The bldg. has since been torn
down. The bullet remained in the possession of Haythorne's attorney,
until it was delivered to the HSCA for examination. Utilizing the
services of the D.C. police they determined it was a jacketed, soft
point .30 caliber bullet, weighing 149 grains which was consistent
with the .30 caliber ammunition produced by Remington-Peters. This
was a popular hunting gauge. **The 6 groove, right hand twist rifling
marks on the bullet indicated that the bullet was not from LHO's
purported Carcano.**
3) The Lester Speciman: The third speciman is a bullet fragment found
in Dealey Plaza by Richard Lester in 1974. Its precise location was
500 yards from the TSBD and 61 paces east of the triple overpass
abutment. Mr. Lester turned the fragment over to the FBI for analysis
in December 1976. The FBI reported its findings in July 1977, and
concluded that the fragment, which consisted of the base portion of
the bullet and weighed 52.7 grains, was consistant with the diameter
of a 6.5mm bullet. It was also determined that the fragment came from
a metal jacketed soft point, or hallow point sporting bullet. The
rifling characteristics **did not match** those of a Mannlicher-
Carcano. Even though the fragment contained the 4 grooves, right hand
twist pattern of Oswald's purported Mannlicher-Carcano, the lands
between the grooves were spaced further apart than his Carcano. Again,
no one felt it was necessary to look into this as the work of a second
gunman.
4) The Dal-Tex Speciman: The fourth piece of firearm evidence consists
of a rusted shell casing found on the rooftop of the Dal-Tex bldg. in
1977 by an air-conditioning man. The Dal-Tex bldg. is just east of
the TSBD, across Houston St. The rusted condition of the casing
indicated it had been there for a long time. What was unique about
this case was the crimped edges along the neck suggesting that either
the shell had been handloaded or had been used in conjunction with a
sabot, by means of which a smaller weapon caliber slug can be fired
from higher caliber weapon.
> And these plotters did it all just perfectly, per most CT accounts,
> even though Connally and Kennedy could very well have had XX number of
> missiles stuck inside them when they arrived at Parkland.*
There was a cosistent pattern of ignoring any evidence that did not
point to the pre-determined conclusion, i.e. LHO did it by himself. We
won't know what was taken out of JFK because all we can do is go by
what they said.
>
> * = And they DID have multiple NON-OSWALD bullets inside them too, per
> CT accounts of events --- e.g., JFK's neck bullet, caused by some
> oddball low-powered weapon....plus JFK's back-wound bullet, again
> caused by a low-powered weapon evidently, since it only goes into him
> a couple of inches; these wounds make NO sense from the assassins' POV,
> because why on Earth would any pro assassins shoot TWO dum-dum type of
> non-fatal bullets at the target; that's pure stupidity....plus the XX
> number of bullets that CTers say pelted Gov. Connally, which were all
> never seen by any non-plotters either.
It could have been a sabot bullet, see number 4 above. Some of these
don't work properly all the time.
>
> The "hide-the-bullets-before-somebody-gets-wise" plot only gets
> sillier and sillier the more any logical person thinks about it.
Only to people who believe that their government doesn't do bad
things. If you are not naive and realize it is a mean world out there
none of this is out there. It happened in a control environment.
>
> But the LHO/LN/3-Shot scenario fits perfectly, to a tee, right down
> the line -- from the TSBD evidence (rifle/shells), to the fragments inside
> the limo, to the witness testimony, to the SBT alignment, to CE399, to
> the autopsy report, and to the fact that NO OTHER BULLETS were found
> anyplace that could be connected with the victims' wounds.
No it doesn't as I showed with the car. Too much damage for the
amount of bullets (two) you have to work with. Also, you have JBC and
Nellie swearing until they died that JBC was not hit with the same
bullet as JFK. There goes your SBT. But as usual, the WC knew better
than people that were there (see Tomlinson and Whaley for example).
>
> And to think that this amount of LHO-hanging stuff could have possibly
> ALL been "faked" and/or "arranged" by evil plotters after the fact in
> such a short time period is to believe in magic (literally).
First of all you have no stuff, and secondly to think they didn't
control the autopsy you are nuttier than I thought, otherwise, they
could have left the body in TX as the law required.
David Von Pein
Gotta love that.
Hey! At least the kooks are finally finding those missing bullets!
And what great marksmen those assassins were, huh?!! With three of the
four "specimens" being found ON ROOFTOPS all around the Plaza!
I guess the "real killers" were bird-hunting on November 22nd, instead
of firing DOWN at JFK's car.
Keep going, kook. It's fascinating.
robcap...@netscape.com
> Goodie! Four made-up bullets purported to have been fired on 11/22!
> Gotta love that.
First of all they were only two bullets, one fragment and a shell
casing. All were turned in to the FBI or the HSCA so there goes the
made up part. Nobody ever said for sure they were fired on 11/22/63,
but it would seem like something the feds could have explored, how
many people go hunting in Dealey Plaza?
>
> Hey! At least the kooks are finally finding those missing bullets!
Sure, typical LN tactic, bowled over with evidence and they make goofy
comments like this.
> And what great marksmen those assassins were, huh?!! With three of the
> four "specimens" being found ON ROOFTOPS all around the Plaza!
I can't speak to that, but it is odd hunting bullets and casings would
be found in Dealey Plaza.
>
> I guess the "real killers" were bird-hunting on November 22nd, instead
> of firing DOWN at JFK's car.
>
> Keep going, kook. It's fascinating.
Sure, you have no answer. I also no you ignored all my other questions
above, means you can't answer them, right?
Walt
> >>> "People get lucky, but what I am saying is that your scenario requires as many, or more, presuppositions as most CTs." <<<
>
> It requires NO "presuppositions" in point of fact.
>
> Why?
>
> Because the physical evidence left behind by the murder weapon TELLS
> US
> that Oswald's rifle (crappy as it may have been) was the ONLY weapon
> that fired any bullets that hit anyone in JFK's car on 11/22.
Hey Von Pea Brain..... Where was the bullet and the fragments found??
Were they removed from the body of the victim, or were they found in a
remote location far removed from the body? If they were not removed
from the body of the victim, and found in some remote place far
removed from the body, how do you know they are the bullets that
killed the victim??
>
> Similar to the useless CT arguments re. the Tippit murder (that
> argument being: Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th St. in time to
> shoot Tippit) ....
You know the evidence indicates that LHO could not have traveled from
the rooming house to the 10th and Patton in two or three minutes....
you just don't want to admit that that FACT exonerates Oswald.
a similar type of CT argument proves to be totally
> useless and moot with respect to the JFK murder weapon as well (with
> that invalid CT argument being: Oswald's rifle could not possibly have
> been the gun used to kill JFK because it was a rusty, defective,
> mis-aligned POS that only cost $21.45).
Actually the MC cost $19.95..... An error on your part, but what the
hell you aren't very accurate or believable on any of the information
you spew so I guess we should just shrug it off.
Walt
aeffects
You know Dave, you can save yourself a lot of grief by having Vinnie
daBug do his own posting here.... no need for you to hold his
jockstrap and pull pud at the same time, giove yourself a day off now
and then -- good for that sorry ass soul of yours.... helps for a
better disposition, too! Carry on son!
On Nov 29, 2:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Where was the bullet {CE399} and the fragments {CE567 & CE569} found?? Were they removed from the body of the victim, or were they found in a remote location far removed from the body? If they were not removed from the body of the victim, and found in some remote place far removed from the body, how do you know they are the bullets that killed the victim??" <<<
>
> Yeah, I guess I should start believing one of these two things:
>
> 1.) CE399, CE567, and CE569 were planted by one or more unknown,
> unseen evidence-manipulators.
>
> or:
>
> 2.) Oswald's rifle just happened to be used in a DIFFERENT shooting on
> 11/22/63, with this OTHER shooting event resulting in Bullet 399 being
> found in the very same hospital where JFK & JBC were transported.
>
> I've tried mightily to come up with a "CT Kook's Goofy Alternative"
> scenario with respect to CE567 & CE569 being found inside the
> limousine on the same day when JFK & JBC were shot....but I'm having a
> difficult time pretending to be one of you conspiracy-happy kooks when
> it comes to making up some kind of alternate version of the obvious
> truth regarding those two important pieces of bullet evidence.
>
> But perhaps Walt The Kook can help me out here. -- Maybe those
> fragments were ALREADY inside the car at some previous time before the
> assassination, huh? And nobody noticed them until after Kennedy was
> killed.
>
> Yeah, try using that theory, Walt. It's just about as goofy as the
> rest of your canned CT tripe.
>
> >>> "You know the evidence indicates that LHO could not have traveled from the rooming house to the 10th and Patton in two or three minutes. You just don't want to admit that that FACT exonerates Oswald." <<<
>
> Sure, that particular fact would, indeed, exonerate your favorite
> patsy of the Tippit murder....but ONLY if you can somehow establish
> with 100% certainty that the "1:06" time for the murder that you kooks
> love to precariously cling to is positively correct.
>
> And, as we all know, OTHER EVIDENCE (and plenty of it) completely
> trumps and destroys the "1:06" timeline that CTers embrace.
>
> But, when you're an idiot like Walt, the subjective and approximated
> timelines given by witnesses somehow trump the harder, more-verifiable
> evidence, such as the four bullet shells from Oswald's very own gun
> and the numerous witnesses who said it was Oswald who was on Tenth
> Street when Tippit died.
>
> >>> "Actually, the MC cost $19.95. An error on your part..." <<<
>
> No, it wasn't an error on my part at all. The $21.45 gun cost that I
> previously mentioned is totally accurate. Because that's what it cost
> Lee Harvey Oswald to obtain Rifle #C2766 -- $21.45 (including the
> $1.50 for postage and handling). .....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Walt
Liar.....Here's your statement...." a similar type of CT argument
proves to be totally useless and moot with respect to the JFK murder
weapon as well (with that invalid CT argument being: Oswald's rifle
could not possibly have been the gun used to kill JFK because it was a
rusty, defective, mis-aligned POS that only cost $21.45).
You said NOTHING about the $21.45 including a shipping charge.You said
the POS (referring to the rifle) only cost $21.45.
Because that's what it cost Lee Harvey Oswald to obtain Rifle #C2766
-- $21.45 (including the
$1.50 for postage and handling). .....
Thank you for exposing your dishonesty once again.....I'm sure lurkers
also noticed.
Walt
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
David Von Pein
Yeah, I guess I should start believing one of these two things:
1.) CE399, CE567, and CE569 were planted by one or more unknown,
unseen evidence-manipulators.
or:
2.) Oswald's rifle just happened to be used in a DIFFERENT shooting on
11/22/63, with this OTHER shooting event resulting in Bullet 399 being
found in the very same hospital where JFK & JBC were transported.
I've tried mightily to come up with a "CT Kook's Goofy Alternative"
scenario with respect to CE567 & CE569 being found inside the
limousine on the same day when JFK & JBC were shot....but I'm having a
difficult time pretending to be one of you conspiracy-happy kooks when
it comes to making up some kind of alternate version of the obvious
truth regarding those two important pieces of bullet evidence.
But perhaps Walt The Kook can help me out here. -- Maybe those
fragments were ALREADY inside the car at some previous time before the
assassination, huh? And nobody noticed them until after Kennedy was
killed.
Yeah, try using that theory, Walt. It's just about as goofy as the
rest of your canned CT tripe.
>>> "You know the evidence indicates that LHO could not have traveled from the rooming house to the 10th and Patton in two or three minutes. You just don't want to admit that that FACT exonerates Oswald." <<<
Sure, that particular fact would, indeed, exonerate your favorite
patsy of the Tippit murder....but ONLY if you can somehow establish
with 100% certainty that the "1:06" time for the murder that you kooks
love to precariously cling to is positively correct.
Plus, you would also need to (somehow) prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Earlene Roberts' estimation about Oswald staying in his room "3
or 4 minutes" is 100% accurate AND that Oswald left his roominghouse
at exactly 1:03 or 1:04 PM.
In actuality, of course, not a single one of those "timeline" items
mentioned above can be locked down with absolute TO-THE-MINUTE
precision. They're all estimations.
And, as we all know, OTHER EVIDENCE (and plenty of it) completely
trumps and destroys the "1:06" timeline that CTers embrace.
But, when you're an idiot like Walt, the subjective and approximated
timelines given by witnesses somehow trump the harder, more-verifiable
evidence, such as the four bullet shells from Oswald's very own gun
and the numerous witnesses who said it was Oswald who was on Tenth
Street when Tippit died.
>>> "Actually, the MC cost $19.95. An error on your part..." <<<
No, it wasn't an error on my part at all. The $21.45 gun cost that I
previously mentioned is totally accurate. Because that's what it cost
Lee Harvey Oswald to obtain Rifle #C2766 -- $21.45 (including the
$1.50 for postage and handling). .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
David Von Pein
Well, while we're splitting those rifle-cost hairs, I guess I can
split a few of my own too, and therefore reveal Walt's "dishonesty"
when he said this:
"Actually the MC cost $19.95."
That's incorrect. The rifle itself only cost $12.78. The rifle PLUS
the scope was $19.95. The S&H was $1.50, for a total cost to Lee
Harvey Oswald via mail-order of $21.45.
Any more hairs you care to split , Walt-Kook?
Walt
Nah.... You've demonstrated very well the kind of person you are.
Walt
David Von Pein
>>> "Nah....You've demonstrated very well the kind of person you are." <<<
Yeah, I think so too.
I.E.:
Someone who goes where the sum total of evidence leads him.
Walt, however, has demonstrated (many times) what kind of person he
is....
I.E.:
A person who wants Lee Oswald to be innocent of 2 murders that LHO
obviously committed in nineteen hundred sixty-three AD.
For the one "lurker" (per month) who might be interested in entering
the labyrinth of a Mega-Kook's mind, just go to the link below for a
full-blown example of the type of nutcase and evidence-twister Walter
truly is.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7d3264251021ff76
David Von Pein
Addendum........
======================================
"The delusions of certain CTers are always a wonder to behold.
This thread has totally trashed Walt's "BRENNAN WAS DESCRIBING THE
WEST-END WINDOW" bullshit from pillar to post (and back again)...and
here's what Wacky Walt comes back with....
" "Oh no, I'm not going home yet. I'm having too much fun
kicking yer ass."
"It's all part of the wonderful world of Disney -- er, I mean
"CT-Kooks" .... i.e., part of their lovely "NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS
TO BE" make-believe world of conspiracy. This includes not even
realizing (or dare admitting at any rate) when they (the kooks) have
had their own asses kicked seven ways to Sunday.
"I've thoroughly trashed Walt's crackpot Brennan theory in the
past too, of course. This is just the latest time. And Walt still
keeps acting as if his theory remains erect with legs of cast-iron.
"A delusional world must be heaven to some." -- DVP; 03/18/2007
======================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/136db4e5c96073ee
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Where were the bullet {CE399} and the fragments {CE567 & CE569} found?? Were they removed from the body of the victim, or were they found in a remote location far removed from the body? If they were not removed from the body of the victim, and found in some remote place far removed from the body, how do you know they are the bullets that killed the victim??" <<<
>
> Yeah, I guess I should start believing one of these two things:
>
> 1.) CE399, CE567, and CE569 were planted by one or more unknown,
> unseen evidence-manipulators.
Absolutely. Let's look at the chain of evidence for the magic bullet
(if you can even call it this). The bullet is found by Tomlinson
after he bumbs a stretcher causing it to knock against another
stretcher against the wall, then a bullet rolls out. Which stretcher
did it come from? Tomlinson certainly doesn't know and he brought the
JBC stretcher down from the second floor, but the WC will decide for
him and say it came from JBC's. Now, all JBC did was lie on it from
the emergency room to the second floor operating room, yet they say if
fell out. Meanwhile, JFK is on his stretcher *the whole time* he is
in the hospital until he is placed in the casket. He also receives
cardiac massage and other life saving methods that could easily knock
the bullet from his back since it only penetrated such a short
distance. Hoover said the bullet was found on JFK's strectcher, is he
a liar nutjob? The other stretcher the JBC stretcher hit probably was
JFK's but we will never know for sure because the WC did not make the
times available. Tomlinson said the eventual CE399 looked nothing like
the bullet he found. As for the fragments, you should hope they are
planted as your three shot/two hit scenario cannot account for them
according to your beloved Frazier.
>
> or:
>
> 2.) Oswald's rifle just happened to be used in a DIFFERENT shooting on
> 11/22/63, with this OTHER shooting event resulting in Bullet 399 being
> found in the very same hospital where JFK & JBC were transported.
How do you know this happened on 11/22/63? They easily could have been
firing rounds off before the day of the assassination for plant
evidence. No one knows if the gun had been fired that day or not for
sure.
>
> I've tried mightily to come up with a "CT Kook's Goofy Alternative"
> scenario with respect to CE567 & CE569 being found inside the
> limousine on the same day when JFK & JBC were shot....but I'm having a
> difficult time pretending to be one of you conspiracy-happy kooks when
> it comes to making up some kind of alternate version of the obvious
> truth regarding those two important pieces of bullet evidence.
Obviously you have never heard of cops planting dope on criminals have
you? They don't do it (and by no means do the majority of cops do
this as most are hard working honest cops, and I know because I have a
few friends who work for the DEA) ahead of time, they have it on them
and then put it were they are searching. Same with the limo. Go up
to it as it is being cleaned out and poof, drop the samples in. Or
just have them on you and lay them on the floor and say, "look what I
found". It is not rocket science.
>
> But perhaps Walt The Kook can help me out here. -- Maybe those
> fragments were ALREADY inside the car at some previous time before the
> assassination, huh? And nobody noticed them until after Kennedy was
> killed.
Doubt it, and you doubt it too as the limo is constantly being
cleaned.
>
> Yeah, try using that theory, Walt. It's just about as goofy as the
> rest of your canned CT tripe.
His tripe sounds logical to me, but I'm not a nutjob like you.
>
> >>> "You know the evidence indicates that LHO could not have traveled from the rooming house to the 10th and Patton in two or three minutes. You just don't want to admit that that FACT exonerates Oswald." <<<
>
> Sure, that particular fact would, indeed, exonerate your favorite
> patsy of the Tippit murder....but ONLY if you can somehow establish
> with 100% certainty that the "1:06" time for the murder that you kooks
> love to precariously cling to is positively correct.
I think we have with the radio transcript from the DPD would show the
time of the shooting, unless of course the WC altered them, if not, it
shoud show 1:05 or 1:06 PM as this is the time the cops at the
depository said they heard of the shooting.
>
> Plus, you would also need to (somehow) prove beyond a reasonable doubt
> that Earlene Roberts' estimation about Oswald staying in his room "3
> or 4 minutes" is 100% accurate AND that Oswald left his roominghouse
> at exactly 1:03 or 1:04 PM.
Think Harvey and Lee, two men, not one.
>
> In actuality, of course, not a single one of those "timeline" items
> mentioned above can be locked down with absolute TO-THE-MINUTE
> precision. They're all estimations.
Kinda like your theory.
>
> And, as we all know, OTHER EVIDENCE (and plenty of it) completely
> trumps and destroys the "1:06" timeline that CTers embrace.
Really? Like what for example?
>
> But, when you're an idiot like Walt, the subjective and approximated
> timelines given by witnesses somehow trump the harder, more-verifiable
> evidence, such as the four bullet shells from Oswald's very own gun
> and the numerous witnesses who said it was Oswald who was on Tenth
> Street when Tippit died.
This isn't evidence, this is made up LN garbarge as none of what you
said above is true.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Congratulations Walt! It's always a 'good thing' when you can get LNT'ers,
particularly trolls, to research the evidence.
David Von Pein
==================================================
Just as I predicted.....more "make-believe kook-talk" from Wacky Walt:
>>> "Belin cleverly did NOT give him a photo of the TSBD that showed the entire south face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63; so Brennan was forced to depict the rifle angle on that cropped Tom Dillard photo." <<<
And was Belin GAGGING Brennan too? Was Brennan prohibited from saying:
"Mr. Belin, this is not the window with the gunman"?
It's obvious why Belin didn't need to use photos depicting any WEST-
side windows.....it's because there was nothing going on in those
windows at all, and therefore the west-end windows were meaningless as
far as Brennan's testimony was concerned. So Belin, naturally, used
this large blow-up of the Dillard picture, which (of course) shows in
zoomed form THE ONLY WINDOW WHERE BRENNAN SAW ANYONE ON 11/22/63....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113b.htm
>>> "If you were just half as smart and superior as you think you are you would have had better sense than to post the link to CE 482...<snip>..." <<<
And if you get any kookier, Nurse Ratched will come a-callin' for ya.
>>> "Anybody who looks at CE 482 can clearly see that it would have been impossible for Oswald to fire from that window." <<<
<sigh> There's that word "impossible" again. CT-Kooks love that word.
<sigh>
>>> "Howard Brennan drew an arrow depicting the angle of the rifle as the gunman fired." <<<
Yep. And on CE482, the exact window from which Oswald was firing. Go
figure.
>>> "It a very easy task to slide that 45-degree angle line down, and try to make it fit with the Warren Commission's scenario of Oswald sitting on a box behind the window and resting his rifle on a stack of boxes in front of him, and find that it can't be done as the Warren Commission SPECULATED." <<<
Walt evidently (per his vast knowledge here) has gone up to the SN,
raised the window half-way, and then fired a Carcano rifle toward the
Underpass....and he has verified that Oswald's feat was "impossible".
(Kooks love that word.)
>>> "Thank you for making a fool of yourself once again." <<<
And thank you for being the best butt any joke ever had.
~tips cap~
>>> "Incidently, I do sincerely want to thank you for inadvertantly post{ing} a link to a photo that absolutely demolishes the Warren Commission's THEORY that Lee Oswald was guilty, and he fired from that window to kill President Kennedy." <<<
<chuckles warmly at the idiocy of above statement>
And you, yourself, are incapable of posting links to pictures and
sites and articles, right? Weird.
Note how Walt, in true kook fashion, labels one photo as proof that
the WC scenario is "demolished". Of course just HOW the Dillard photo
"demolishes" the LN scenario is a mystery. But Walt KNOWS. That's what
counts....a kook KNOWS that Lee is innocent! He KNOWS!
Even though multiple people saw a rifle sticking out of that window
seen in CE482, and shells were below that very window, and Oswald's
prints were all over the nest (plus bag), and Oswald is seen at that
window, and Oz's bullets are IN THE LIMO and IN THE HOSPITAL --- this
(in a kook's world) adds up to:
A TOTALLY-DEMOLISHED THEORY BY WAY OF THIS IMAGE:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0113b.htm
It is now time (officially) to call for Nurse Ratched. ....
http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/OneFlewRatched2.jpg
>>> "...If you goggle [sic; LOL added; I might need "goggles" for this; that shit COULD be dangerous to my eyeballs!] back about ten years you may get a shock." <<<
You mean I might see some stuff posted by Walt that ISN'T full of
kookshit??! (Because that's the only way you'll shock me at this stage
of the game.)
BTW, once more (for effect)....the following exchange between Belin &
Brennan "absolutely demolishes" Walt-Kook's Brennan theory:
BELIN -- "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
can recollect?"
BRENNAN -- "Not on that floor. There was no other person on that floor
that ever came to the window that I noticed. There were people on the
next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In
particular, I only remember two that I identified."
===============
NEXT ON "THE KOOK CHANNEL" --- WALT DECLARES BRENNAN TOTALLY BLIND AS
OF 11/22/63!! AND WALT CAN PROVE IT!! DETAILS AT 10!!
=========================================================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
Walt
> Addendum........
>
> ======================================
>
> "The delusions of certain CTers are always a wonder to behold.
> This thread has totally trashed Walt's "BRENNAN WAS DESCRIBING THE
> WEST-END WINDOW" bullshit from pillar to post (and back again)...and
> here's what Wacky Walt comes back with....
>
> " "Oh no, I'm not going home yet. I'm having too much fun
> kicking yer ass."
>
Hey!!.... Thank you Pea Brain.... Now I don't have to repeat my
glee....
It's quite obvious that I've scored big time and and really pissed you
off....GREAT!!
Why else would you go back and compile mant of my posts over the past
year.
You really want to discredit the FACT that Brennan DESCRIBED a gunman
who was NOT Lee Oswald and he DESCRIBED a window that was NOT the so
called Sniper's Next window, don't you?
Why have my posts that reveal what Brennan DESCRIBED got yer balls in
a bind??? Never mind, I know you won't answer, so I'll answer the
question for you...... Yer obsessed with my posts about what Brennan
DESCRIBED because you can't HONESTLY refute the FACT that Brennan said
the man he saw in a sixth floor window was wearing LIGHT colored
clothing ( white shirt, and white trousers) while the W.C. determined
that Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing ( reddish brown shirt
and dark gray trousers) Brennan also said the man he saw with the
rifle was at least six years older than Oswald, about 35 pounds
heavier, and had darker hair.
Brennan also DESCRIBED the window that the gunman, who was NOT Oswald,
was firing from. He DESCRIBED a window that was wide open when he said
he could see the gunman STANDING and steadying the rifle against the
side of the window. HE said he could see ALL OF THE MAN FROM HIS HIPS
TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD.
Brennan also DESCRIBED a rifle that was NOT a military rifle.....He
called the rifle a HIGH POWERED ( hunting) rifle, with a long exposed
metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
back. The Mannlicher Carcano has only about 5 INCHES of exposed metal
barrel....the other 16 inches of metal barrel is coverd by a wooden
stock.
Thanks for kickin a sleepin dog....Ya dumb ass.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
It's not the first time that I've mentioned my belief that the best purpose
served by LNT'ers and trolls is to act as a blackboard, upon which CT'ers write
the evidence for all to see.
Walt, you certainly take every opportunity to write on that blackboard!
David Von Pein
>>> "It's quite obvious that I've scored big time and and really pissed you off." <<<
I'm not pissed off in the slightest. I'm basking in your lunacy and
I'm giddy with kook-bashing pleasure. (And yet the kook interprets
this giddiness and pleasure as being "pissed off". So, once more, a
kook gets something completely backwards. Ya gotta love it!)
>>> "Why else would you go back and compile many of my posts over the past year." <<<
For the sheer enjoyment of showing you up for what you are -- a mega-
kook of the first order with respect to Howard Leslie Brennan and what
Brennan saw on November 22, 1963.
>>> "You really want to discredit the FACT that Brennan DESCRIBED a gunman who was NOT Lee Oswald and he DESCRIBED a window that was NOT the so called Sniper's Next window, don't you?" <<<
A baked potato could "discredit" the dumb shit you say, Walt. (A cold
baked potato even.) I've merely HIGHLIGHTED your idiocy several times,
for all to behold and marvel at.
>>> "Why have my posts that reveal what Brennan DESCRIBED got yer balls in a bind?" <<<
My gonads are in a normal state of non-binding. Why would you think
otherwise?
My previous post earlier, in a step-by-step form, totally destroys
your kookshit regarding Brennan....but you (being a kook who has
apparently endorsed your tripe re. Brennan for XX number of years)
aren't likely to let go of your insanity simply because your insanity
has been PROVEN WRONG....right, kook? (That's what I thought.)
I merely like to re-post your nonsense every few months -- kind of
like a "Kook Show & Tell Day". Don Willis' "ARCE SHOT JFK" hilarity is
always good for such re-posts as well.
>>> "Yer obsessed with my posts about what Brennan DESCRIBED because you can't HONESTLY refute the FACT that Brennan said the man he saw in a sixth floor window was wearing LIGHT colored clothing ( white shirt, and white trousers) while the W.C. determined that Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing ( reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers) Brennan also said the man he saw with the rifle was at least six years older than Oswald, about 35 pounds heavier, and had darker hair. Brennan also DESCRIBED the window that the gunman, who was NOT Oswald, was firing from. He DESCRIBED a window that was wide open when he said he could see the gunman STANDING and steadying the rifle against the side of the window. HE said he could see ALL OF THE MAN FROM HIS HIPS TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. Brennan also DESCRIBED a rifle that was NOT a military rifle.....He called the rifle a HIGH POWERED ( hunting) rifle, with a long exposed metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle back. The Mannlicher Carcano has only about 5 INCHES of exposed metal barrel....the other 16 inches of metal barrel is coverd by a wooden stock." <<<
Thanks, Walt. I knew you'd get all goose-pimply and worked up into a
Brennan lather over my re-posting of your idiotic theory.
And we're treated to the word "DESCRIBE" (in the traditional 'ALL
CAPS') seven (7!) times in the same Walt post. Now, you just can't
beat that with a stick!
>>> "Thanks for kickin a sleepin dog....Ya dumb ass." <<<
And thanks for taking the "Brennan Bait", Walt-Kook, and for re-
posting all of the same kookshit I've thoroughly debunked and
dismantled many times over. (I knew you would, of course.)
But, naturally, the debunking will be ignored...and has been. And
that's mainly because....
1.) A new day has dawned since the most-recent debunking.
2.) Walt The Kook is a shameless evidence-skewing moron.
Walt
Hey, Von Pea Brain, Why do you bother with presenting the twisted
testimony that Brennan gave before the shyster Lawyers of the Warren
Commission??? Most folks here have seen Howard Brennan's affidavit
which he wrote only a couple of hours after the murder of President
kennedy. In that afidavit he gave information that was damning to
the official story that was invented by J. Edna Hoover. ( That Oswald
was a lone nut who murderd JFK ) Brennan's affidavit by itself shows
quite clearly ...( we don't need David belin or Von Pea Brain
intepreting...that Lee Oswald was NOT the man that Brennan and others
had seen with a hunting rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD. In that
affidavit which was written, shortly after the shooting, and long
before the authorities had a chance to influence,and intimidate him,
he said the sixth floor gunman was " a white man, in his early
thirties", (Oswald had just turned 24) who " would weigh about 165 to
175 pounds" ( Oswald weighed 140 pounds) "He had on light colored
clothing, but definately not a suit" ( Oswald was dressed in DARK
colored clothing, a reddish brown shirt and gray trousers)
Notice that he specifies the clothing was light colored but NOT a
suit. Later he elaborated that the man's shirt and trousers were both
light colored by saying....." his trousers were a shade lighter than
his shirt".
Brennan DESCRIBED the window where he had seen the light clothing clad
gunman in the affidavit. Howard Brennan wrote: "about 50 yards from
the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the
presidents back was in line with the last window"( of the sixth floor
of the TSBD) I heard what I thought was a backfire"
The "LAST WINDOW" ( ie; the window furtherest away from Brennan, and
the window at the end of a row of windows)
That would be the WEST END window which was WIDE OPEN at the time.
Brennan also specified that JFK's back would have been in line with
that last window which he estimated as about 50 yards from the
intersection of Houston and Elm. The TSBD is approximately 100 feet
across the south face or 33 yards....The SE corner of the building
sets about 15 -20 yards west of the "intersection of Elm and Houston",
so Brennan was fairly accurate in his estimate of where that window
was located.
Brennan gave more details about that window when he wrote that he said
he saw the man STANDING behind the window "taking aim with a high
powered rifle". He said he could see "all of the barrel of the
gun" ( Indicates he was looking at a rifle that had a long metal
barrel) After the shot he " let the gun down to his side and STEPPED
DOWN out of sight".... "I could see all of the man from about his belt
up" .... All of these bits of information indicate that Brennan was
looking at a man behind a WIDE OPEN window. (The WEST end window) If
the gunman had been Oswald firing from the so called "Sniper's Nest"
in a crouched position, as theorized by the Warren Commission,
Brennan's description could not have included information about seeing
the man "Standing" and seeing all of his upper body, "from the belt
up", because the steep angle from Brennan's position up to the SE
corner window would have prevented him from see anything but the very
muzzle of the rifle, and possibly the top of the head.
In closing his affidavit, Brennan wrote:... "I believe I could
Identify this man if I ever saw him again".
He was taken to the police station to view a line up in which Oswald
was a participant. He saw Oswald in that line up but he told the cops
the 33 year old, 175 pound man, in the light colored clothing he'd
seen firing the hunting rifle, was NOT in that line up.
Thank You Von Pea Brain.... I love it when you ask me to post the
FACTS.
Walt
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> >>> "It's quite obvious that I've scored big time and and really pissed yo=
>u off." <<<
>>
>> I'm not pissed off in the slightest. I'm basking in your lunacy and
>> I'm giddy with kook-bashing pleasure. (And yet the kook interprets
>> this giddiness and pleasure as being "pissed off". So, once more, a
>> kook gets something completely backwards. Ya gotta love it!)
>>
> year." <<<
>>
>> For the sheer enjoyment of showing you up for what you are -- a mega-
>> kook of the first order with respect to Howard Leslie Brennan and what
>> Brennan saw on November 22, 1963.
>>
> who was NOT Lee Oswald and he DESCRIBED a window that was NOT the so called=
> Sniper's Next window, don't you?" <<<
>>
>> A baked potato could "discredit" the dumb shit you say, Walt. (A cold
>> baked potato even.) I've merely HIGHLIGHTED your idiocy several times,
>> for all to behold and marvel at.
>>
> a bind?" <<<
>>
>> My gonads are in a normal state of non-binding. Why would you think
>> otherwise?
>>
>> My previous post earlier, in a step-by-step form, totally destroys
>> your kookshit regarding Brennan....but you (being a kook who has
>> apparently endorsed your tripe re. Brennan for XX number of years)
>> aren't likely to let go of your insanity simply because your insanity
>> has been PROVEN WRONG....right, kook? (That's what I thought.)
>>
>> I merely like to re-post your nonsense every few months -- kind of
>> like a "Kook Show & Tell Day". Don Willis' "ARCE SHOT JFK" hilarity is
>> always good for such re-posts as well.
>>
>an't HONESTLY refute the FACT that Brennan said the man he saw in a sixth fl=
>oor window was wearing LIGHT colored clothing ( white shirt, and white trous=
>ers) while the W.C. determined that Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing=
> ( reddish brown shirt and dark gray trousers) Brennan also said the man h=
>e saw with the rifle was at least six years older than Oswald, about 35 poun=
>ds heavier, and had darker hair. Brennan also DESCRIBED the window that the =
>gunman, who was NOT Oswald, was firing from. He DESCRIBED a window that was =
>wide open when he said he could see the gunman STANDING and steadying the ri=
>fle against the side of the window. HE said he could see ALL OF THE MAN FROM=
> HIS HIPS TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD. Brennan also DESCRIBED a rifle that was NO=
>T a military rifle.....He called the rifle a HIGH POWERED ( hunting) rifle, =
>with a long exposed metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel fr=
>om the muzzle back. The Mannlicher Carcano has only about 5 INCHES of expose=
>d metal barrel....the other 16 inches of metal barrel is coverd by a wooden =
It's good to see that the killfiled trolls such as DVP are still liars and
cowards.
They have to be, of course ... the evidence simply does not support their view
that a single lone nut was out with a rifle that day. I'm sure glad that I can
rely on the actual evidence rather than lie to support a faith.
aeffects
> In article <7957fed2-7fad-4a94-b338-3a5d89c90...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
your last sentence sums up present day Lone Nut cause, PERFECTLY!
Walt
> In article <7957fed2-7fad-4a94-b338-3a5d89c90...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
There is further evidence that the gunman who was NOT Oswald was
firing from the WEST end window.
Howard Brennan said that when he looked up and saw the LIGHT clothing
clad gunman STANDING and bracing against the side of the window, and
firing the hunting rifle, he dived off the wall he was sitting on and
took refuge from that sniper.
He said that he dived to the EAST side of the wall to shield himself
from the gunman who was to the WEST of his location. ( the WEST end
window) If the gunman had been Oswald as the Warren Commission
THEORIZED and he had been firing from the so called "Sniper's Nest".
His actions would have been futile, because he would still have been
in direct line of fire as can be seen by looking at the photo (CE 477)
of Brennan sitting on the wall across the street from the TSBD that is
shown on page 62 of the Warren . The photo shows that if Brennan had
dived to the east side of that wall he would still have been a
"sitting duck" if the sniper had been firing from that SE corner
window on the sixth floor.
Walt
>
> >In closing his affidavit, Brennan wrote:... "I believe I could
> >Identify this man if I ever saw him again".
>
> >He was taken to the police station to view a line up in which Oswald
> >was a participant. He saw Oswald in that line up but he told the cops
> >the 33 year old, 175 pound man, in the light colored clothing he'd
> >seen firing the hunting rifle, was NOT in that line up.
>
> >Thank You Von Pea Brain.... I love it when you ask me to post the
> >FACTS.
>
> >Walt
>
> >> And thanks for taking the "Brennan Bait", Walt-Kook, and for re-
> >> posting all of the same kookshit I've thoroughly debunked and
> >> dismantled many times over. (I knew you would, of course.)
>
> >> But, naturally, the debunking will be ignored...and has been. And
> >> that's mainly because....
>
> >> 1.) A new day has dawned since the most-recent debunking.
>
> >> 2.) Walt The Kook is a shameless evidence-skewing moron.
>
> It's good to see that the killfiled trolls such as DVP are still liars and
> cowards.
>
> They have to be, of course ... the evidence simply does not support their view
> that a single lone nut was out with a rifle that day. I'm sure glad that I can
> rely on the actual evidence rather than lie to support a faith.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
BEATING A STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORY INTO THE BACKWOODS (WHERE IT
BELONGS)......
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A CONSPIRACY KOOK ("WALT") SAID --- He {Howard Brennan} DESCRIBED the
location where he saw the gunman aiming the rifle from the window, and
he did NOT describe the window on the EAST end of the sixth floor.
DVP (DAVID ROBERT VON PEIN; NOT A CONSPIRACY KOOK) --- This is total
nonsense, and anyone who reads all of Howard Brennan's testimony would
know that the CTer who wrote the above bullshit doesn't have the
slightest idea what he's talking about.
Brennan's testimony shows that Brennan saw a man (Lee Harvey Oswald)
in only ONE single window in the Texas School Book Depository on
11/22/63 -- and that window was the southeast corner window on the
sixth floor.
Any reasonable person who examines all of Brennan's Warren Commission
testimony would easily come to the conclusion that Brennan only saw a
man in the EAST-end window. And it's also easy to see that nobody was
manipulating Brennan's words, nor was David Belin preventing any "West
End" references from getting into the WC record.
But, just like almost all other conspiracy kooks who are charter
members of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" club, the CTer who wrote
the above remarks has no idea how to properly and objectively evaluate
physical evidence or witness testimony.
=====================================================
WALT --- Since David Belin did a good job of twisting Brennan's
testimony...
DVP --- Nobody is "twisting" Howard Brennan's testimony except a kook
named Walt. That's for damn sure.
Let's examine it more closely after having read through ALL of
Brennan's WC testimony (which I just now did)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
David W. Belin was in NO WAY trying to twist or manipulate Howard
Brennan's words during Brennan's WC session. That's obvious when you
read the transcript.
For, if Belin HAD been on a mission to "twist" Brennan's account of
the shooting (in order to keep any references to a WEST-END shooter
from entering the official record), would Belin have said this to Mr.
Brennan in such an OPEN-ENDED manner, which allows Brennan to say
anything he wants to say with regard any (supposed) WEST-SIDE
assassin?.....
BELIN: "Mr. Brennan, could you please tell the Commission what
happened from the time you sat on that retaining wall, what you saw?"
And would Belin have been willing to dangle this hot question in front
of Brennan if Belin and the WC had wanted to hush up info re. any
west-
end TSBD killer?.....
BELIN: "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
And here's yet another question that no idiot would have dared ask
Brennan if that person (Mr. Belin) had been wanting to choke off the
witness in some way.....
BELIN: "Now, after you saw the man--well, just tell what else you saw
during that afternoon."
And below we have still another example of Belin's reckless
questioning tactics (if he'd been wanting to keep a bunch of stuff out
of the record...because how in the heck did Belin know how Brennan
would respond to this question?).....
BELIN: "Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him
{the TSBD gunman} this last time?"
Below we have other indications that Howard Brennan was referring to
ONLY the southeast TSBD window.....
BRENNAN: "Spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were the two
colored boys that was on the fifth floor, or on the next floor
underneath the man that fired the gun."
~~~~~~~~
BELIN: "Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the
same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a
couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?"
BRENNAN: "Yes, sir."
BELIN: "About how far were you away from that window at the time you
saw him, Mr. Brennan?"
BRENNAN: "Well, at that time, I calculated 110 foot at an angle. But
closer surveillance I believe it will run close to 122 to 126 feet at
an angle."
~~~~~~~~
Notice the references to "THAT WINDOW" and "THE WINDOW" --- indicating
the ONLY window Brennan EVER refers to specifically throughout his
entire testimony....i.e., the SN/SE window on the 6th Floor.
~~~~~~~~
And then there's the "red pencil" demonstration done by Brennan on
CE482, which is a photo of the SN window, with Brennan marking the
approx. angle of the rifle he saw being fired FROM THAT EXACT WINDOW
(obviously)! .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
I guess Walt must think that Brennan marked a simulated rifle angle on
CE482 with a red pencil, even though Brennan knew that he was marking
the WRONG WINDOW! Right, Walt?.....
BELIN: "Now, I wonder if you would take on Exhibit 482, if you can
kind of mark the way the rifle was at the time you saw it. Here is a
red pencil. If you could put on Exhibit 482 the direction that you saw
the rifle pointing, sir."
BRENNAN: "I would say more at this angle. Maybe not as far out as
this."
BELIN: "You have put a line, and I have tried to make a little bit
darker line."
BRENNAN: "That is as close as I can get it."
BELIN: "This is on Exhibit 482--as to the angle at which you saw the
rifle. And you say perhaps it wasn't out of the window as far as this
line goes on Exhibit 482, is that correct?"
BRENNAN: "Right."
GERALD FORD: "That is the angle that you believe the rifle was
pointed?"
BRENNAN: "Yes."
ALLEN DULLES: "And that is from the area in the window from which the
rifle was pointing?"
BRENNAN: "Right."
~~~~~~~~
Please note that Brennan doesn't correct anyone on the Commission as
to CE482 being the WRONG WINDOW from where Howard had seen any gunman
firing a rifle.
And Brennan certainly had every opportunity to make such a correction
if one had been required. Obviously, none was required, because CE482
represented the exact window from which Brennan had seen Oswald firing
a weapon at President Kennedy.
And then we have these remarks made by Belin. (Is he lying his ass off
here?).....
BELIN: "What is the fact as to whether or not I told you what to say
or you yourself just told me what you wanted to tell me?"
BRENNAN: "You did not instruct me what to say at all. I told you in
the best words I could to explain exactly my movements and what
happened."
GERALD FORD: "And here today you have testified freely on your own?"
BRENNAN: "Right, I have."
~~~~~~~~
And then we get Allen Dulles asking Brennan the following loaded-full-
of-potential-dynamite question (if the WC had wanted to keep some
stuff out of the record, that is).....
DULLES: "Anything you would like to add?"
And then we can examine Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit, where we
can also find verbal indications of an EAST-end shooter (not WEST
end), when Brennan says this.....
BRENNAN: "In the east end of the building and the second row of
windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before
the President's car arrived."
A little later in the same affidavit, we find.....
BRENNAN: "I then saw this man I have described in the window and he
was taking aim with a high-powered rifle."
Does Walt want the world to believe that when Brennan said "THE
WINDOW" in that last sentence above, Howard was REALLY referring to
the west end of the Depository, even though just a few sentences
earlier in the same affidavit he said "IN THE EAST END OF THE
BUILDING"?
~~~~~~~~
More useful tidbits from Brennan's WC session (with this being an
excellent question being asked by Mr. Belin, btw).....
BELIN: "You said you saw the man with the rifle on the sixth floor,
and then you said you saw some Negroes on the fifth floor."
BRENNAN: "Yes."
BELIN: "Did you get as good a look at the Negroes as you got at the
man with the rifle?"
BRENNAN: "Yes."
BELIN: "Did you feel that your recollection of the Negroes at that
time was as good as the one with the man with the rifle?"
BRENNAN: "Yes--at that time, it was."
~~~~~~~~
And then there's this regarding the issue of the color of the gunman's
clothing.....
BELIN: "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man
with the rifle was wearing?"
BRENNAN: "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I
mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
~~~~~~~~
So, via the above words of Howard Brennan, the gunman could have been
wearing "light"-colored clothing...or "khaki"-colored clothing. But
there's the word "maybe" in there too. And that initial "no" to
Belin's question in the first place.
Plus -- Since we KNOW that Brennan saw the assassin (Oswald) through a
half-opened window on the southeast corner of the TSBD's 6th
Floor...and we also know that the windows in the TSBD were fairly
dirty on 11/22/63...I'm wondering if (just possibly) the "dirty"
status of the TSBD windows might have influenced the "dingy" remark
made by Howard Brennan above.
=====================================================
WALT --- Belin cleverly did not provide a photo that showed the entire
face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63. He gave Howard
Brennan photos that showed only windows on the upper east side,
forcing Brennan to use those photos to depict the events he witnessed.
DVP --- Oh sure. And Brennan, being the box of dumb rocks you must
think he was, decided to not say the following --- "Well, Mr. Belin,
this photograph doesn't depict the far-west-end window where I saw the
assassin shooting...but, what the fuck....I'll just pretend the
shooter was on the east end." --- right, Mr. Kook?
~LOL~
(And an even bigger: "LOL".)
:)
=====================================================
WALT --- If the truth be known, the gunman was probably planting the
spent shells when Brennan saw him.
DVP --- Yeah...and then these boobs decided they'd shoot from the
exact OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shells were
"planted", instead of merely using the pre-arranged patsy-creating SN
window.
Yeah, that makes sense .... if you're a Mega-Kook.
Plus -- There are Oswald's fresh prints on those SN boxes too...don't
forget. Were those being "planted" too? Or did the plotters just get
lucky with those prints?
=====================================================
WALT --- Belin twisted the events that happened BEFORE the shooting to
make it look like Brennan was talking about what he saw DURING the
shooting.
DVP --- And how was Belin supposed to prevent Brennan from using the
words "West End" or "The other end of the building is where I saw him
shoot from", etc.?
Belin just got lucky that the word "West" never escaped Brennan's lips
when Howard "DESCRIBED" the location within the TSBD where the
rifleman was located, huh?
=====================================================
WALT --- Brennan is saying that the shirt was a light-colored khaki
shirt; it could have been dingy white, and perhaps you know that dingy
white is a shade of WHITE.
DVP --- But khaki isn't. .... Kook.
=====================================================
WALT --- Early in his testimony Belin asked Brennan how he was dressed
that day, and Brennan said he was dressed in gray KHAKI work clothes.
So KHAKI is a type of material to Howard Brennan, not necessarily a
color.
DVP --- That must be why Brennan TWICE during his WC testimony utters
the specific word "color" immediately after uttering the word "khaki".
Right? But it's best if you just ignore those TWO times Brennan says
"khaki color".....
BRENNAN (Page 144): "...More of a khaki color."
BRENNAN (Page 160): "...And a khaki color."
=====================================================
WALT --- Now you admit the windows were dirty. So how did Brennan see
all of the details he DESCRIBED through TWO thicknesses of dirty
glass?
DVP --- During the shooting, Brennan no doubt saw Oswald crouching
behind the MC rifle BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE DIRTY WINDOWS, i.e.,
through the open bottom half of the SN window, even though Brennan was
of the false impression that Oswald was "standing".
But don't forget he ALSO thought the Negroes on the 5th Floor were
"standing" as well, which is equally (but consistently) as incorrect.
Now, quite obviously, while watching Oswald aim and fire the last
rifle shot, Brennan could have easily seen many of the details
regarding Oswald's general appearance.
But evidently to a kook like Walt ALL of the pertinent data re.
Oswald's clothes and appearance HAD to be witnessed through ONLY the
CLOSED (upper-half) of the SN window.
Go figure.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
=====================================================
WALT --- You're not really this obtuse....are you?!!
DVP --- No, I'm not. But you sure are. Obtuse, kooky, nutty, Oswald-
loving, evidence-skewing....you name it. You're it.
=====================================================
WALT --- We are in total agreement....Brennan was not lying.
DVP --- Yeah...Walt must think that Howard Brennan was merely
MISINTERPRETED when he gave his WC testimony....but not lying.
Brennan circled ONE SINGLE WINDOW on a Commission Exhibit where he saw
A MAN on the 6th Floor...not TWO windows. Just one. And that one
window was the SN window in the SE corner of the building.
Walt thinks that Brennan must have FORGOTTEN about seeing the gunman
in the WEST window DURING the shooting...which is THE most important
information (of course) given by Brennan during his testimony to the
WC. But Brennan never bothered to say this to Mr. Belin:
"Oh, by the way Mr. Belin, that window I circled in CE477 isn't where
I saw the gunman actually shooting from. No, I saw the man firing a
gun from this west-end window over here. Sorry, I didn't mean to
confuse you."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce477.jpg
Brennan saw the man/assassin (later positively IDed by Brennan as Lee
Harvey Oswald) in only ONE window on 11/22/63....that's obvious by his
testimony and by his WINDOW-CIRCLING actions on CE477....and that
window was the SN window on the southeast side of the TSBD.
Walt, being a revisionist CT kook, will continue to make up his own
unique brand of Assassination (Il)Logic (and made-up witness testimony
evidently) in order to promote his own forever-skewed idea that a
gunman was located on the WEST side of the 6th Floor of the Texas
School Book Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. (Even though, per Walt,
Oswald was going to be FRAMED AS THE LONE PATSY at a DIFFERENT window
in the building in the southeast corner. Go figure that crackpot pre-
assassination logic, huh?)
=====================================================
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4
=====================================================
Walt
> BEATING A STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORY INTO THE BACKWOODS (WHERE IT
> BELONGS)......
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
Pssssst.... Pea Brain. Have you noticed that Howard Brennan
revealed things in his affadavit that needed to be "cleared up"
because the languge of his affidavit was just plain ol everyday
english, and therefore if it became public the averge joe might not
believe that Oswald was the killer. Ya know what I mean? Brennan
said things like " The gunman was wearing light colored
clothing" .....Well hell, the average joe might get the idea that the
gunman wasn't Oswald because Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothing
at the time.
Hoover and Johnson knew they had to discredit Howard Brennan, because
the naive fool had stepped right out of the crowd and started speaking
about what he's seen ( He was seen on TV talking to the police and
newsmen, thus demonstrating that he wasn't afraid to tell the whole
wide world about what he'd witnessed ) When they learned what he'd
written in his affidavit they decided to make him a "Star Witness"
where they could get their pack of silver tongued lawyers to "clarify"
the plain english of Howard Brennan's affidavit.
I'm really sorry to have to point this out to you.....yer obviously a
very intelligent fellow.... ( I suspect that you are a lawyer) Why is
it that you haven't noticed what the Lawyers were doing with Howard
Brennan and other "Star Witnesses"?????
Or have you noticed but are trying to sweep that under the
rug??????..... Hmmmmmmm
Walt
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.ht...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4
>
> =====================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to discredit Howard Brennan." <<<
More nonsense from a King Of Nonsense named Walt.
Fact is, Brennan's original 11/22 affidavit ALSO totally debunks Walt-
Kook's assertions about Brennan seeing a WEST-end assassin. In black-&-
white, right there in the affidavit, Brennan's own words on 11/22/63
are staring Walt The Kook in the face and are screaming, in essence,
"THE KILLER WAS IN THE EAST-END SIXTH-FLOOR WINDOW!"
There is nothing in Brennan's original affidavit that indicates he saw
the assassin in any window other than the EAST-end window on the 6th
Floor. And Brennan's description of the assassin via his 11/22
affidavit is very close to being identical to the description he gave
to the police on 11/22 and to the WC a few months later.
Walt The Kook wants to believe that Brennan's remark about the killer
wearing "light-colored clothing" completely eliminates Lee Harvey
Oswald as the assassin whom Brennan saw in the Sniper's Nest. Well,
Walt's wrong, as usual. Oswald had on a T-shirt that day, and could
have very well been wearing only that white T-shirt when he was
shooting at the President.
Or: It's possible that Oswald did have his brownish shirt on over the
T-shirt while in the SN, but maybe it was unbuttoned all the way down,
making the white T-shirt underneath more visible to Brennan. Multiple
explanations are possible, since Oswald was wearing TWO shirts,
including his white T-shirt, when he was arrested.
Here is Howard L. Brennan's affidavit (which has already discussed in
previous posts, of course, as I already have pointed these things out
to Walt....but it's like talking to a corpse). Text in all caps is my
added emphasis:
"Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of
November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address
6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:
"I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction
Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past
7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the
West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks.
"We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria
at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of
the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the
intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole.
"I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street
from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be
about 7 stories anyway in the EAST END OF THE BUILDING AND THE SECOND
ROW OF WINDOWS FROM THE TOP I saw a man in this window. I had seen him
before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there
looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the
President.
"I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a
white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would
weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but
definately [sic] not a suit.
"I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at
the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm
and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in
line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I
thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be
someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building
and I looked up at the building.
"I then saw this man I have described in THE WINDOW and he was
taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of
the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking
at the man in THIS WINDOWS [sic] at the time of the last explosion.
Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of
sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from
about his belt up.
"There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I
believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again."
/s/ H. L. Brennan
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Walt
> >>> "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to discredit Howard Brennan." <<<
>
> More nonsense from a King Of Nonsense named Walt.
>
> Fact is, Brennan's original 11/22 affidavit ALSO totally debunks Walt-
> Kook's assertions about Brennan seeing a WEST-end assassin. In black-&-
> white, right there in the affidavit, Brennan's own words on 11/22/63
> are staring Walt The Kook in the face and are screaming, in essence,
> "THE KILLER WAS IN THE EAST-END SIXTH-FLOOR WINDOW!"
Hey Von Pea Brain.....Brennan DID NOT say "THE KILLER WAS IN THE EAST-
END SIXTH-FLOOR WINDOW!" Why have you typed that lie in CAPS, and put
it in quotation marks?? Do you want the whole wide world to know that
you are a liar?? Howard Brennan never said anything like that.
Heres what he wrote:.....
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories, anyway
in the east end of the building, and the second row of wlndows from
the top row of windows, I saw a man in this window. I had seen him
before the President's car arrived."
"I had seen him.... BEFORE..... the President's car arrived"
Do you understand what the word ... "BEFORE"... means???
Brennan saw the 33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in a dingy
white shirt and white trousers, in the east end window planting the
spent shells just BEFORE the President's car arrived.
But DURING the shooting he saw the 33 year old, 175 pound man, who was
dressed in a dingy white shirt and white trousers, STANDING and
aiming the hunting rifle behind the WEST end window. He DESCRIBED
the window as being wide open.....because he said he could see ALL OF
THE MAN, FROM HIS BELT TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD.
If that gunman had been Lee Oswald CROUCHING down behind the window
sill as the Warren Commission THEORIZED he could not have seen that
33 year old, 175 pound man, who was dressed in a dingy white shirt and
white trousers, FROM HIS BELT TO THE TOP OF HIS HEAD.
Walt
David Von Pein
spews re. Brennan.
Anyone with one-fifth of 1 brain cell knows from reading Brennan's
affidavit that Howard was talking about seeing the shooter in the EAST
window.
Only a total moron would or could think otherwise.
And, of course, Walt qualifies as that.
Plus -- A killer at the WEST end of the sixth floor is completely
ludicrous even for Walt The Kook and all the "Patsy kooks" like
him....because why would any group of patsy plotters pre-arrange a
shooting where they shoot JFK from the WEST window, but then proceed
to frame their lone patsy by planting all kinds of evidence in the
EAST window?
Great theory you've got there, Walt. Stick with it though...it fits
you to a tee. Because it's completely insane from every POV.
Walt
> >>> "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to discredit Howard Brennan." <<<
>
> More nonsense from a King Of Nonsense named Walt.
>
> Fact is, Brennan's original 11/22 affidavit ALSO totally debunks Walt-
> Kook's assertions about Brennan seeing a WEST-end assassin. In black-&-
> white, right there in the affidavit, Brennan's own words on 11/22/63
> are staring Walt The Kook in the face and are screaming, in essence,
> "THE KILLER WAS IN THE EAST-END SIXTH-FLOOR WINDOW!"
>
> There is nothing in Brennan's original affidavit that indicates he saw
> the assassin in any window other than the EAST-end window on the 6th
> Floor. And Brennan's description of the assassin via his 11/22
> affidavit is very close to being identical to the description he gave
> to the police on 11/22 and to the WC a few months later.
>
> Walt The Kook wants to believe that Brennan's remark about the killer
> wearing "light-colored clothing" completely eliminates Lee Harvey
> Oswald as the assassin whom Brennan saw in the Sniper's Nest. Well,
> Walt's wrong, as usual. Oswald had on a T-shirt that day, and could
> have very well been wearing only that white T-shirt when he was
> shooting at the President.
Hey Von Pea Brain....Are you aware that several other witnesses also
saw the LIGHT colored clothing clad gunman up there BEFORE the
President arrived?? I know you do know about Arnold, Fisher, and
Edwards because you've responded to a post in which I called them to
your attention. So it was just Brennan who saw the LIGHT clothing
clad gunman with the HUNTING rifle up there on the sixth floor.....
And further more Brennan specifically said that the gunman's TROUSERS
were a lighter shade of WHITE than his shirt. Even if Oswald had
removed his DARK colored reddish brown shirt and he would still have
been wearing his DARK colored gray trousers. ....Unless you literally
mean that Lee was wearing NOTHING but a T-shirt so that his bare ass
appeared to be white trousers to Brennan....Is that what yer
suggesting ?? If it is I gotta tell ya....I don't think many non
LNer's will believe THAT. I'd guess that most LNer's would believe
that because they will believe damned near anything.
Walt
David Von Pein
thing for the 95th time, Walt.
I've destroyed you 94 previous times (handily)...but, like a firm
piece of log-like shit in a swimming pool, you just keep popping back
up to the surface to get bludgeoned yet again.
Walt thinks there was a gang of Good Humor Men (dressed all in white
from head to toe--so as to not attract any attention, I
guess...<chuckle>)...and the GH men really killed the President and
set up Ozzie in the WRONG window.
Even with a slight discrepancy in the trouser color, Oswald's still
guilty as Jeffrey Dahmer and everybody knows it.
But, to a kook, that one discrepancy regarding clothing colors is
enough to let LHO off the hook, despite the other 109 things (approx.)
that tell us he's guilty.
And I see Walt is still lying about the "hunting rifle" bullshit
(Brennan never said that). But at least he's stopped telling the "35
year old" lie about Oz's age, per Brennan. Now, Walt has decided to
say "33 years old", even though Brennan never specified that exact age
either.
Why Walt can't just tell the truth re. Brennan's actual verbiage
("early 30s") is anyone's guess. He likes to stamp things with
specificity when certain things can never actually be stamped that
way....like the "age" thing and all of the timelines associated with
the JFK & JDT murder cases.
But, no matter how many times these facts are brought to Walt's
attention, he'll do his "shit floating in the pool" routine and pop
back up with those lies over & over again.
It's part of the "Can't Let Go Of A Lie" disease. Nothing can cure it.
Well, looks like I went almost all the way around that Absurd Tree
after all.
Just call it a bonus.
Walt
> No amount of obfuscating will allow Walt to escape the absurdities he
> spews re. Brennan.
>
> Anyone with one-fifth of 1 brain cell knows from reading Brennan's
> affidavit that Howard was talking about seeing the shooter in the EAST
> window.
>
> Only a total moron would or could think otherwise.
>
> And, of course, Walt qualifies as that.
Atta boy Von Pea Brain.... Heap on the ad hominem attacks, that will
make you more believable.
>
> Plus -- A killer at the WEST end of the sixth floor is completely
> ludicrous even for Walt The Kook and all the "Patsy kooks" like
> him....because why would any group of patsy plotters pre-arrange a
> shooting where they shoot JFK from the WEST window, but then proceed
> to frame their lone patsy by planting all kinds of evidence in the
> EAST window?
The FACT is that is exactly what happened..... The evidence that was
intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted
in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting
site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells
behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end
window?? Perhaps there were two men up there ( there are several
reports indicating two men) and one planted the shells behind the east
end window, while the man in the west end window was totally unaware
that the the other guy was planting the shells.
That's one possibility......
there are several other possible reasons that the shells were planted
behind the east window, but I wasn't there at the time, so I can only
speculate. However I do know that the gunman that Brennan saw firing
a hunting rifle, was firing from the WEST end window. The TSBD
building owner ( Dry Hole Byrd) had that WEST end window removed and
stored away as a historical artifact immediately after the
assassination, because he knew that it was that WEST end window from
which one of the assassins had fired.
Walt
Walt
It's part the "Can't Let Go Of A Lie" disease. Nothing can cure it.
Hey Doc,...... How does a person contract the.... "Can't Let Go Of A
Lie" disease??. I'm no doctor but I'd bet they get it by reading the
Warren Report and believing it is the truth.
Since thousands of highly intelligent people have recognized that the
W.R. is a lie, I'd say that anybody who believes it
is probably suffering from that incurable disease, which is also known
as Cranialrectumitis.
Walt
David Von Pein
Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
going to say in just a second.
Gotta love it.
And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end (Arce maybe?; ask
Willis about this; you guys can write a new kookbook).
I love it.
>>> "Perhaps there were two men up there...and one planted the shells behind the east end window, while the man in the west end window was totally unaware that the the other guy was planting the shells." <<<
Please, Walt...stop!!
My bladder! Remember the weakness of it!!
Next On The Kook Channel......
TWO BOOBS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR WHO HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE OTHER WAS DOING
ON NOV. 22, EVEN THOUGH THE HEAD BOOB(S) WERE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME
OSWALD *WELL IN ADVANCE OF NOV. 22*!! Details at 11....if we can get
the editor to stop laughing and edit the damn film!
>>> "There are several other possible reasons that the shells were planted behind the east window, but I wasn't there at the time, so I can only speculate." <<<
Yes, you do that very well. In fact, that's ALL you do--speculate.
Hilarious.
>>> "However I do know that the gunman that Brennan saw firing a hunting rifle, was firing from the WEST end window." <<<
Goodie. Walt continues the "hunting rifle" lie. Try finding the word
"hunting" ANYWHERE on the webpages below....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan2.htm
BTW, Walt, has anyone ever proven that the portions of a 5'9" man that
Brennan said he saw in the Sniper's Nest window (on the east side of
the building, of course, not the west end) could actually be seen from
Brennan's 11/22 vantage point WHILE THE PERSON WAS STANDING?
I'm not like Walt The Kook, because I don't EXPECT to have a witness
get every last thing correct with 100% accuracy, right down to the
age, height, weight, and hues of clothing. But Walt seems to expect
this kind of accuracy from casual observers.
I know that Brennan definitely got some things wrong -- like Oswald's
precise age, his precise weight, and there's the differences in the
clothing colors. Plus, I know that Brennan was wrong when he said that
Oswald (and the fifth-floor Negroes) were "standing" in their
respective windows at certain times when Brennan observed them on
November 22nd, when we know for a fact that detail is incorrect,
because we know that Jarman, Norman, and Williams were kneeling and
not standing.
But Brennan was consistent regarding this inaccuracy....from the
Negroes to Oswald on the floor directly above J,N,&W.
But my earlier point is this -- I'm just wondering if any "tests" were
done to show how much of a 5-foot-9 man would indeed be visible from
Brennan's POV when looking through either the half-opened SN window or
(to make Walt happy) through a wide-open window on the west side of
the Depository?
My guess is that the man's face and head (and probably much more too)
would be located above the area of either a half-open or fully-open
window if the person was standing up erect, which would make
identifying any facial features of any such standing man quite
difficult on 11/22/63, seeing as how those windows look fairly dirty
(and there'd be DOUBLE the dirty window panes extending toward the top
portion of the window too).
In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0116a.htm
But Brennan, at SOME POINT on November 22, certainly was able to see
Lee Oswald's FACE at least once, in order to make a positive
identification. And this was almost certainly when Oswald was firing
his third and fatal shot from the Sniper's Nest. (Plus, Brennan
probably got a decent look at Oswald's face just after that last shot
was fired, and just before Oswald moved back away from the squatting
position that he was almost certainly in when he fired the rifle at
the President.)
>>> "The TSBD building owner (Dry Hole Byrd) had that WEST end window removed and stored away as a historical artifact immediately after the assassination, because he knew that it was that WEST end window from which one of the assassins had fired." <<<
Goodie! More "speculation" from a know-nothing kook!
Gotta love it!
>>> "Since thousands of highly intelligent people have recognized that the W.R. is a lie, I'd say that anybody who believes it is probably suffering from that incurable disease...<blah-blah>..." <<<
Funny, though, how the HSCA bought the WC's main conclusion -- i.e.,
Oswald fired the only shots that hit any victim in DP on 11/22, isn't
it Walt-Kook?
Walt, therefore, thinks that ALL MEMBERS of the HSCA were rotten,
stupid shills. Right, kook?
Nice blanket coverage there. Not only was the WC rotten and worthless.
But the follow-up investigators (a totally-different batch of many,
many people) were ALSO, per Mr. Kook, somehow either duped into buying
the WC's WRONG conclusions re. Oswald or were ALSO the same type of
rotten (stupid) Govt. shills like every member of the WC & Staff was.
Go figure.
Blanket "cover-up" coverage--15 years apart!
Amazing anyone could believe that.
But Walt does. Because he's a ....... Moron.
>>> "Walt" <<<
I love the way Walt signs all his posts "Walt" at the end. You'd think
that any kook this nutty would want to keep his name out of it as much
as possible.
Hilarious.
Walt
> I'm not going ALL the way around your insanity bush with this Brennan
> thing for the 95th time, Walt.
>
> I've destroyed you 94 previous times (handily)...but, like a firm
> piece of log-like shit in a swimming pool, you just keep popping back
> up to the surface to get bludgeoned yet again.
>
> Walt thinks there was a gang of Good Humor Men (dressed all in white
> from head to toe--so as to not attract any attention, I
> guess...<chuckle>)...and the GH men really killed the President and
> set up Ozzie in the WRONG window.
Walt thinks there was a gang of Good Humor Men (dressed all in white
from head to toe--so as to not attract any attention, I
guess...<chuckle>)...and the GH men really killed the President and
set up Ozzie in the WRONG window.
Well not exactly right.....But that's not bad for an unthinking fool.
What Walt actually thinks is:.... There was only ONE ( not a gang)
man dressed in a dingy white shirt and lighter colored trousers. Why
you would think he was a "Good Humor" man is anybody's guess....
Perhaps you think that he spread good humor by murdering JFK, that
would fit with your role of abetting the conspiritors.
As for the question of which window Brennan saw the gunman firing
from, it's pretty clear that Brennan was DESCRIBING the WIDE OPEN
window at the WEST end of the sixth floor. As I pointed out his
affidavit was written in plain ol english, and that's why the
conspiritors had to get him in front of a "Blue Ribbon committee" of
silver tongued shyster lawyers who could "clear up" what Howard
Brennan meant to say.
>Even with a slight discrepancy in the trouser color, Oswald's still
> guilty as Jeffrey Dahmer and everybody knows it.
No, I don't think that's correct.... last time I checked the majority
did not think Oswald was "the lone nut assassin"
>
> But, to a kook, that one discrepancy regarding clothing colors is
> enough to let LHO off the hook, despite the other 109 things (approx.)
> that tell us he's guilty.
ONE ?? One discrepancy?? Brennan's affidavit reveals at least a
half a dozen MAJOR and KEY discrepancies in the Warren Commissions
THEORIZED version of the event. The W.C. ignored or twisted Brennan's
descriptions.
Brennan said the gunman was in his early thirties, (at least six years
older than Oswald) He said the gunman weighed between 165 and 175
pounds ( Oswald weighed 140) The two discrepansies in clothing color
has already been counted. Brennan said the man was STANDING ( The
Warren Commission THEORIZED that LHO was SITTING on a box) Brennan
said that the window where he saw the gunman was WIDE OPEN ( The
Warren Commission theorized that it was only part of the way open)
I believe that's six major discrepansies.....but perhaps you can't
count beyond ONE.
Walt
Walt
ROTFLMAO!!!! Dontcha just love this line of "reasoning"
Cantcha just hear a detective asking a witness for a description of a
suspect?
Q.......Well about what age was this white guy?
A.......Oh, I donno he wasn't real young. but he wasn't real old
either.
Huh??... well ok ...How tall would you say this white guy was?
A.......I'd guess that he was about average height....He wasn't
short,and he wasn't tall.
Groan... Well ok... How about the white guy's weight.. How much would
you say he weighed?
A..... Oh he was about average weight for his height..... somewhere
between 160 and 200.
Sigh.....Well ok .... did you notice the guys clothing? What color
clothing was this white guy wearing?
A....... I think he had on some kinda shirt, maybe gray, or blue, and
I think he was wearing blue jeans.
Well ok, thank you for the description, Mr Von Pea brain..... At least
we can eliminate a black man as a suspect.
Wait a minute.....now that you mention it..... The guy could have been
a black man...I mean not real black, but a light skinned blackman or a
latino.
Ha.ha,ha, ROTFLMAO!!!.... Yer priceless Pea Brain.
Walt
>
> I know that Brennan definitely got some things wrong -- like Oswald's
> precise age, his precise weight, and there's the differences in the
> clothing colors. Plus, I know that Brennan was wrong when he said that
> Oswald (and the fifth-floor Negroes) were "standing" in their
> respective windows at certain times when Brennan observed them on
> November 22nd, when we know for a fact that detail is incorrect,
> because we know that Jarman, Norman, and Williams were kneeling and
> not standing.
>
> But Brennan was consistent regarding this inaccuracy....from the
> Negroes to Oswald on the floor directly above J,N,&W.
>
> But my earlier point is this -- I'm just wondering if any "tests" were
> done to show how much of a 5-foot-9 man would indeed be visible from
> Brennan's POV when looking through either the half-opened SN window or
> (to make Walt happy) through a wide-open window on the west side of
> the Depository?
>
> My guess is that the man's face and head (and probably much more too)
> would be located above the area of either a half-open or fully-open
> window if the person was standing up erect, which would make
> identifying any facial features of any such standing man quite
> difficult on 11/22/63, seeing as how those windows look fairly dirty
> (and there'd be DOUBLE the dirty window panes extending toward the top
> portion of the window too).
>
> In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Walt
Ithere's the differences know that Brennan definitely got some things
wrong -- like Oswald's
precise age, his precise weight, and in the clothing colors.
Sick....real sick... errr.... I meant slick ...
You think you're real clever by changing the subject's identity from
"the gunman" to "Oswald" and the proceding to announce that Brennan
had Oswald's age and weight wrong. Brennan was NOT describing Oswald
he was describing the man with the HIGH POWERED rifle. Obviously he
couldn't decribe Oswald in his affivavit because he never saw Oswald
up there with a high powered rifle. He saw a man in his early
thirties, who weighed between 165 and 175, with datk hair, who was
dressed in light colored clothes.
Plus, I know that Brennan was wrong when he said that
Oswald (and the fifth-floor Negroes) were "standing" in their
respective windows at certain times when Brennan observed them on
November 22nd, when we know for a fact that detail is incorrect,
because we know that Jarman, Norman, and Williams were kneeling and
not standing.
What Brennan said to the silver tongued shysters of the W.C. is not
relevant ......
This whole discussion is about the plain english of Howard brennan's
affidavit, and the danger it presented to the conspiritors. So stuff
the crap about what the three stooges were doing where the sun don't
shine.
Walt
>
> But Brennan was consistent regarding this inaccuracy....from the
> Negroes to Oswald on the floor directly above J,N,&W.
>
> But my earlier point is this -- I'm just wondering if any "tests" were
> done to show how much of a 5-foot-9 man would indeed be visible from
> Brennan's POV when looking through either the half-opened SN window or
> (to make Walt happy) through a wide-open window on the west side of
> the Depository?
>
> My guess is that the man's face and head (and probably much more too)
> would be located above the area of either a half-open or fully-open
> window if the person was standing up erect, which would make
> identifying any facial features of any such standing man quite
> difficult on 11/22/63, seeing as how those windows look fairly dirty
> (and there'd be DOUBLE the dirty window panes extending toward the top
> portion of the window too).
>
> In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
David Von Pein
Actually it reveals ZERO such discrepancies between the affidavit
Brennan signed on 11/22 and Brennan's WC testimony a few months later.
Let's see.....
>>> "The W.C. ignored or twisted Brennan's descriptions." <<<
The WC did no such thing, of course. They let Brennan talk freely, and
Howard was free to say any damn thing he wanted, after such MULTIPLE
open-ended questions like:
"Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
"Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
"Anything you would like to add?"
But to a kook named Walter, the above type questions were being asked
by crooks and liars who wanted to "twist" Brennan's words.
>>> "Brennan said the gunman was in his early thirties..." <<<
Which is just exactly what he said in BOTH his affidavit and his WC
session.
>>> "He said the gunman weighed between 165 and 175 pounds..." <<<
Which is almost identical to his WC testimony.
Affidavit: "165-175 pounds".
WC Testimony: "160-170 pounds".
(You're really showing those "discrepancies" thus far, Mr. Walt-Kook.
Are you planning on proving your point sometime during this laundry
list?)
>>> "The two discrepancies in clothing color have already been counted." <<<
And Brennan said "light-colored" regarding the clothing in BOTH his
11/22 affidavit and his WC testimony.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said the man was STANDING..." <<<
When talking about the "standing vs. sitting" topic, Brennan actually
used the word "sitting" in his affidavit and not "standing":
"He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting
for the same thing I was, to see the President." -- Via Brennan's
11/22 Affidavit
But in front of the WC, Brennan said that he saw Oswald BOTH sitting
and standing at various times. So, there's really no "discrepancy" in
this regard either.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said that the window where he saw the gunman was WIDE OPEN (The Warren Commission theorized that it was only part of the way open)..." <<<
This point is never even mentioned in Brennan's affidavit. It only
came up during the WC session. So, therefore, there can be no
"discrepancy" in this regard either (from the affidavit to the
testimony), since Brennan never mentions the window "height" in his
November affidavit.
>>> "I believe that's six major discrepancies." <<<
No. It's really this many -- Zero.
I guess Walt-Kook really meant to say that the "discrepancies" exist
with respect to Brennan's UNIFORMLY-CONSISTENT observations (when
comparing his WC testimony and his 11/22/63 affidavit) vs. the actual
physical description of Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, of course, that isn't what Walt implies above (and what he
certainly implied in a previous post or two on this subject earlier on
December 1, 2007; [see quotes below direct from the lips of the kook
himself]).
Instead, Walt is implying that the WC had to "clear up" (per Walt's
verbiage) Brennan's language that exists in the affidavit, because
(quoting the Mega-Kook again) "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to
discredit Howard Brennan, because the naive fool had stepped right out
of the crowd and started speaking about what he's seen", so the WC
"decided to make him a "Star Witness" where they could get their pack
of silver tongued lawyers to "clarify" the plain english of Howard
Brennan's affidavit".
Hilarious stuff Walt.
It's hilarious because the Warren Commission did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.
And that's obvious because Brennan's affidavit and his WC testimony
are almost IDENTICAL in substantive content. There's virtually NO
DIFFERENCES at all. But Walt thinks there are substantial differences
that needed to be "cleared up" (i.e., hidden from view, no doubt) by
the Warren Commission.
Walt (evidently) thinks that Howard L. Brennan's original November
22nd affidavit and Brennan's WC testimony are totally different
versions of what Brennan saw in Dealey Plaza. When, in fact, they are
almost identical.
And, quite obviously, the Warren Commission was not on a mission to
"twist" Brennan's words or to keep certain things out of the written
record, because they let Brennan speak freely and openly about what he
saw on 11/22, and (don't forget) THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED ALL OF
BRENNAN'S VERBATIM TESTIMONY RIGHT THERE IN THE SUPPORTING VOLUMES OF
THE WARREN REPORT FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT ("discrepancies" regarding
Oswald's exact physical description and all).
Let's face it folks -- Walt's ready for a Kook Award. (He's long
overdue for one of those, in fact.)
Walt
> >>> "Brennan's affidavit reveals at least a half a dozen MAJOR and KEY discrepancies in the Warren Commissions THEORIZED version of the event." <<<
>
> Brennan signed on 11/22 and Brennan's WC testimony a few months later.
>
> Let's see.....
>
>
> Howard was free to say any damn thing he wanted, after such MULTIPLE
> open-ended questions like:
>
Howard was free to say any damn thing he wanted,
Totally contrary to the facts..... All witnesses were warned not to
volunteer any information
They were told to just answer the questions. (Many of which were
leading the witness and would have not been allowed in anything but a
kangaroo court.)
Brennan was intimidated and coerced from the very start.....
When they picked him up at his house just hours after the murder they
started planting seeds of fear in his head.
He said that Oswald was NOT the gunman he'd seen with the high powered
rifle in a window on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
The authorities jumped on that and said...." If he (Oswald) isn't the
gunman, then the real gunman is still out on the loose, and you are
putting your family in great danger, because you were filmed for TV
saying that you could identify him."
It didn't take an Einstein to understand the implications of what the
cops were telling him.
You may recall that at the time they took Brennan to view the line up
the primary storie was:... Oswald was the leader of a band of Cuban
Communists who has murdered JFK. The cops hinted that they knew that
Oswald had accomplices who were still on the loose, so Brennan would
be wise to retract the statement that he could identify the sixth
floor gunman. Who knows what might happen to your wife or grandkids if
they think that you can identify them.
What Brennan told the Warren Commission is of little value because he
was NOT unfettered in his testimony. He was bound by the coersion and
warning he'd received from the authorities. The one that made a
indelible impression on him was the public execution of Lee Oswald.
So once again stuff the crap that the W.C. manipulated Brennan into
saying.... Just read the plain english of his affidavit, if you want
the truth.
P.S. A question for anybody reading this thread......
Does anybody know what happened to the film footage of Howard Brennan
talking to the police and reporters???
Walt
> "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
> recollect?"
>
> "Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
>
> "Anything you would like to add?"
>
> But to a kook named Walter, the above type questions were being asked
> by crooks and liars who wanted to "twist" Brennan's words.
>
> >>> "Brennan said the gunman was in his early thirties..." <<<
>
> Which is just exactly what he said in BOTH his affidavit and his WC
> session.
>
> >>> "He said the gunman weighed between 165 and 175 pounds..." <<<
>
> Which is almost identical to his WC testimony.
>
> Affidavit: "165-175 pounds".
>
> WC Testimony: "160-170 pounds".
>
> (You're really showing those "discrepancies thus far, Mr. Walt-Kook?
> Are you planning on proving your point sometime during this laundry
> list?)
>
> >>> "The two discrepancies in clothing color have already been counted." <<<
>
> And Brennan said "light-colored" regarding the clothing in BOTH his
> 11/22 affidavit and his WC testimony.
>
> Next....
>
> >>> "Brennan said the man was STANDING..." <<<
>
> When talking about the this "standing vs. sitting" topic, Brennan
> actually used the word "sitting" in his affidavit and not "standing":
>
> "He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting
> for the same thing I was, to see the President." -- Via Brennan's
> 11/22 Affidavit
>
> But in front of the WC, Brennan said that he saw Oswald BOTH sitting
> and standing at various times. So, there's really no "discrepancy" in
> this regard either.
>
> Next....
>
> >>> "Brennan said that the window where he saw the gunman was WIDE OPEN (The Warren Commission theorized that it was only part of the way open)..." <<<
>
> This point is never even mentioned in Brennan's affidavit. It only
> came up during the WC session. So, therefore, there can be no
> "discrepancy" in this regard either (from the affidavit to the
> testimony), since Brennan never mentions the window "height" in his
> November affidavit.
>
> >>> "I believe that's six major discrepancies." <<<
>
> No. It's really this many -- Zero.
>
> I guess Walt-Kook really meant to say that the "discrepancies" exist
> with respect to Brennan's UNIFORMLY-CONSISTENT observations (when
> comparing his WC testimony and his 11/22/63 affidavit) vs. the actual
> physical description of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> But, of course, that isn't what Walt implies above (and what he
> certainly implied in a previous post or two on this subject earlier on
> December 1, 2007; [see quotes below direct from the lips of the kook
> himself]).
>
> Instead, Walt is implying that the WC had to "clear up" (per Walt's
> verbiage) Brennan's language that exists in the affidavit, because
> (quoting the Mega-Kook again) "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to
> discredit Howard Brennan, because the naive fool had stepped right out
> of the crowd and started speaking about what he's seen", so the WC
> "decided to make him a "Star Witness" where they could get their pack
> of silver tongued lawyers to "clarify" the plain english of Howard
> Brennan's affidavit".
>
> Hilarious stuff Walt.
>
> It's hilarious because the Warren Commission did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.
> And that's obvious because Brennan's affidavit and his WC testimony
> are almost IDENTICAL in substantive content. There's virtually NO
> DIFFERENCES at all. But Walt thinks there are substantial differences
> that needed to be "cleared up" (i.e., hidden from view, no doubt) by
> the Warren Commission.
>
> Walt (evidently) thinks that Howard L. Brennan's original November
> 22nd affidavit and Brennan's WC testimony are totally different
> versions of what Brennan saw in Dealey Plaza. When, in fact, they are
> almost identical.
>
> What a kook.
Walt
> Addendum #2........
>
> ==================================================
>
> Just as I predicted.....more "make-believe kook-talk" from Wacky Walt:
>
> >>> "Belin cleverly did NOT give him a photo of the TSBD that showed the entire south face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63; so Brennan was forced to depict the rifle angle on that cropped Tom Dillard photo." <<<
>
> And was Belin GAGGING Brennan too? Was Brennan prohibited from saying:
> "Mr. Belin, this is not the window with the gunman"?
>
> It's obvious why Belin didn't need to use photos depicting any WEST-
> side windows.....it's because there was nothing going on in those
> windows at all, and therefore the west-end windows were meaningless as
> far as Brennan's testimony was concerned. So Belin, naturally, used
> this large blow-up of the Dillard picture, which (of course) shows in
> zoomed form THE ONLY WINDOW WHERE BRENNAN SAW ANYONE ON 11/22/63....
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> >>> "If you were just half as smart and superior as you think you are you would have had better sense than to post the link to CE 482...<snip>..." <<<
>
> And if you get any kookier, Nurse Ratched will come a-callin' for ya.
>
> >>> "Anybody who looks at CE 482 can clearly see that it would have been impossible for Oswald to fire from that window." <<<
>
> <sigh> There's that word "impossible" again. CT-Kooks love that word.
> <sigh>
>
> >>> "Howard Brennan drew an arrow depicting the angle of the rifle as the gunman fired." <<<
>
> Yep. And on CE482, the exact window from which Oswald was firing. Go
> figure.
>
> >>> "It a very easy task to slide that 45-degree angle line down, and try to make it fit with the Warren Commission's scenario of Oswald sitting on a box behind the window and resting his rifle on a stack of boxes in front of him, and find that it can't be done as the Warren Commission SPECULATED." <<<
>
> Walt evidently (per his vast knowledge here) has gone up to the SN,
> raised the window half-way, and then fired a Carcano rifle toward the
> Underpass....and he has verified that Oswald's feat was "impossible".
> (Kooks love that word.)
Walt evidently (per his vast knowledge here) has gone up to the SN,
> raised the window half-way, and then fired a Carcano rifle toward the
> Underpass....and he has verified that Oswald's feat was "impossible".
Psssst Von Pea Brain.... Ya wanna hear a secret??
Many years ago I built a scale model replica of Dealy Plaza out of
cardboard ( well not actually the entire plaza ) but the area in front
of the TSBD all the way to the triple underpass. I then punched a
hole in the cardboard at the location of the SE corner sixth floor
window. The hole was about 1/4 inch in diameter, just large enough
to place a hollow piece of tubing through it. A person could then
stand behind the "sixth floor window of the TSBD" and look through the
tube and see exactly what a gunman in that location would have seen at
the time of the murder. Which wasn't very much..... because a damned
tree obstructed the view to the limo at the time of the shooting.
Over a period of time, I invited a lot of people ( mostly people who
had only a passing interest ) to look through that tube and see for
themselves the view from the SE corner window. ALL of them were amazed
that they could NOT see the Lincoln between Z 225 and Z 312, at the
time JFK was supposed to have been shot.
>
> >>> "Thank you for making a fool of yourself once again." <<<
>
> And thank you for being the best butt any joke ever had.
>
> ~tips cap~
>
> >>> "Incidently, I do sincerely want to thank you for inadvertantly post{ing} a link to a photo that absolutely demolishes the Warren Commission's THEORY that Lee Oswald was guilty, and he fired from that window to kill President Kennedy." <<<
>
> <chuckles warmly at the idiocy of above statement>
>
> And you, yourself, are incapable of posting links to pictures and
> sites and articles, right? Weird.
>
> Note how Walt, in true kook fashion, labels one photo as proof that
> the WC scenario is "demolished". Of course just HOW the Dillard photo
> "demolishes" the LN scenario is a mystery. But Walt KNOWS. That's what
> counts....a kook KNOWS that Lee is innocent! He KNOWS!
>
> Even though multiple people saw a rifle sticking out of that window
> seen in CE482, and shells were below that very window, and Oswald's
> prints were all over the nest (plus bag), and Oswald is seen at that
> window, and Oz's bullets are IN THE LIMO and IN THE HOSPITAL --- this
> (in a kook's world) adds up to:
>
> A TOTALLY-DEMOLISHED THEORY BY WAY OF THIS IMAGE:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> It is now time (officially) to call for Nurse Ratched. ....
>
> http://www.gonemovies.com/WWW/Drama/Drama/OneFlewRatched2.jpg
>
> >>> "...If you goggle [sic; LOL added; I might need "goggles" for this; that shit COULD be dangerous to my eyeballs!] back about ten years you may get a shock." <<<
>
> You mean I might see some stuff posted by Walt that ISN'T full of
> kookshit??! (Because that's the only way you'll shock me at this stage
> of the game.)
>
> BTW, once more (for effect)....the following exchange between Belin &
> Brennan "absolutely demolishes" Walt-Kook's Brennan theory:
>
> BELIN -- "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you
> can recollect?"
>
> BRENNAN -- "Not on that floor. There was no other person on that floor
> that ever came to the window that I noticed. There were people on the
> next floor down, which is the fifth floor, colored guys. In
> particular, I only remembertwothat I identified."
>
> ===============
>
> NEXT ON "THE KOOK CHANNEL" --- WALT DECLARES BRENNAN TOTALLY BLIND AS
> OF 11/22/63!! AND WALT CAN PROVE IT!! DETAILS AT 10!!
>
> =========================================================
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/06c1f09dbba91a91
David Von Pein
<large chuckle>
Yeah, I'll bet Walt's cardboard Plaza was much, much more "to scale"
and dead-on accurate than Dale Myers' exacting 10-years-in-the-making
"Secrets Of A Homicide" computer-enhanced DP model, huh?
There's probably no comparison at all. Almost any kook would go with a
homemade cardboard version (and a piece of "tubing"), rather than a 3D
computer model based on floor plans of the TSBD and the Hess &
Eisenhardt body draft of JFK's 1961 Lincoln Continental limo. Right,
Walter?
This image (based in large part on the Zapruder Film itself) is
probably all screwed up, right Walt?......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
Walt's ready for a rubber room.
aeffects
> ADDENDUM (MISC. BRENNAN THOUGHTS)...........
>
> Hey Walt,
>
> Why wasn't Howard Leslie Brennan "rubbed out" by the "Mystery Death
> Squad" shortly after Nov. 22 (since his affidavit and his initial
> comments to the press were, per you, so damaging to the
> "conspirators")?
let me help you toots, Brennan was part of it.... you dig! Hell, he
was the first to hide behind a wall, how'd he see what was going on,
Davey-me-boy
> And why wasn't Brennan's affidavit simply destroyed (or changed in
> some way)?
why, see above
> Many CT-Kooks think that the "Plotters/Conspirators" could do almost
> any damn thing they wanted in order to cover up their heinous act of
> murder and conspiracy in Dallas on 11/22/63 (e.g., the plotters, per
> the Mega-Kooks, supposedly coerced witnesses one after another; they
> even KILLED many witnesses; they altered the Z-Film; they altered the
> official autopsy photos & X-rays; the planted all kinds of "LHO Did
> It" evidence at various locations; they created "Double Oswalds" for
> various uses prior to 11/22; and they faked the backyard photos too;
> plus several other covert acts too, per CTers)....
now your talking like the Lone Nut KOOK we've all come to know and
love
> ....And yet they were shy about ripping up a piece of paper with
> Brennan's 11/22 affidavit printed on it??
read my bytes, Brennan is/was a liar, simple as that toot's
> And: they don't bother to "rub out" the ONLY EYEWITNESS (Brennan) who,
> per Walt, actually saw with his own eyeballs a NON-OSWALD assassin
> firing a rifle at John Kennedy.
how'd Brennan do that David, he was behind the wall
> The plotters' priorities were kinda screwed up, weren't they?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, Dave.... JFK was assassinated on
Elm Street that day, less than 150' from your lying hero Mr.
Brennan...
They
> would much rather hunt down and kill (or try to kill) people like
> Warren Reynolds and Domingo Benavides' brother.
you got a lot to learn son...... hang around..... LMFAO!
> Crazy.
Walt
> >>> "All witnesses were warned not to volunteer any information. They were told to just answer the questions. .... Brennan was intimidated and coerced from the very start." <<<
>
> <chuckle>
>
> Yeah, which is why Brennan was asked the following open-ended
> questions by the WC, right Walt-Kook? ......
>
> "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
> recollect?"
>
> "Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
>
> "Anything you would like to add?"
>
>
> Walt thinks Walt was being led around by his nose by the WC, and yet
> we find the above things being asked of Brennan by the very people
> (the WC and staff) whom Walt thinks were "coercing" Howard Brennan.
>
> Would a group of people trying to "coerce" a witness or "twist" his
> words actually have the guts to ask this question?.....
Hey Von Pea Brain... By the time Howard Brennan appeared before the
Warren Commission, he knew what the game was, the shyster lawyers knew
that they could ask him if he had anything to tell them and he would
keep his mouth shut, and say what they wanted him to say.
Brennan KNEW that Lee Oswald was not guilty and he tried to tell the
cops that but they wouldn't listen. He realized that the people that
were framing Oswald were wearing DPD badges. When he saw Oswald
murdered while in the custody of the very people who he knew were
framing Oswald, he got the message. They would stop at nothing, and
they were capable of anything.
He did allow his true character to show through a couple of times
while appearing before the shysters. One of his more revealing
statements occurred when he was testifying, about what had happened at
the police line up, in which Oswald was a participant. He said that
the police had tried to get him to identify Oswald as the gunman he's
seen in the TSBD, but he refused to cooperate, and would not go along
with what they were attempting to do. The cops persisted and asked
him why he was so certain that Oswald was not the man he'd seen with
the rifle. Brennan replied that Oswald was dressed differently than
the man he'd seen. The cops then told him that Oswald had gone home
and changed his clothes after the shooting.
So you see .... The shysters of the Warren Commission didn't have to
tell Brennan to go along with their leading questions or else..... He
was well aware of what happened to JFK and Lee Oswald at the hands of
the cold blooded killers.
Walt
>
> "Anything you would like to add?"
>
David Von Pein
<chuckle>
Yeah, which is why Brennan was asked the following open-ended
questions by the WC, right Walt-Kook? ......
"Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
"Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
"Anything you would like to add?"
===============
Walt thinks Brennan was being led around by his nose by the WC, and
yet we find the above things being asked of Brennan by the very people
(the WC and staff) whom Walt thinks were "coercing" Howard L. Brennan.
Would a group of people trying to "coerce" a witness or "twist" his
words actually have the guts to ask this question?.....
"Anything you would like to add?"
Walt's ready for a rubber room.
David Von Pein
Hey Walt,
Why wasn't Howard Leslie Brennan "rubbed out" by the "Mystery Death
Squad" shortly after Nov. 22 (since his affidavit and his initial
comments to the press were, per you, so damaging to the
"conspirators")?
And why wasn't Brennan's affidavit simply destroyed (or changed in
some way)?
Many CT-Kooks think that the "Plotters/Conspirators" could do almost
any damn thing they wanted in order to cover up their heinous act of
murder and conspiracy in Dallas on 11/22/63 (e.g., the plotters, per
the Mega-Kooks, supposedly coerced witnesses one after another; they
even KILLED many witnesses; they altered the Z-Film; they altered the
official autopsy photos & X-rays; they planted all kinds of "LHO Did
It" evidence at various locations; they created "Double Oswalds" for
various uses prior to 11/22; and they faked the backyard photos too;
plus several other covert acts as well, per CTers)....
....And yet they were shy about ripping up a piece of paper with
Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit printed on it??
And: they don't bother to "rub out" the ONLY EYEWITNESS (Brennan) who,
per Walt, actually saw with his own eyeballs a NON-OSWALD assassin
firing a rifle at John Kennedy??
The plotters' priorities were kinda screwed up, weren't they? They
would much rather hunt down and kill (or try to kill) people like
Warren Reynolds and Domingo Benavides' brother.
Crazy.
===========================================
HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- EYEWITNESS TO A TRAGEDY:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a83751f6ce319004
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d26167f23399f7d6
===========================================
Walt
> On Dec 1, 8:59 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > ADDENDUM (MISC. BRENNAN THOUGHTS)...........
>
> > Hey Walt,
>
> > Why wasn't Howard Leslie Brennan "rubbed out" by the "Mystery Death
> > Squad" shortly after Nov. 22 (since his affidavit and his initial
> > comments to the press were, per you, so damaging to the
> > "conspirators")?
Why wasn't Howard Leslie Brennan "rubbed out" by the "Mystery Death
Squad" shortly after Nov. 22 (since his affidavit and his initial
comments to the press were, per you, so damaging to the
"conspirators")?
Why does everything need to explained to you Lner's??...... Never
mind the answer is obvious.
The conspirators never bumped ant HIGH PROFILE witness who they knew
the could turn to their advantage.
Howard Brennan became a very high profile witness immediately
following the murder. If they would have snuffed him, it would have
been impossible to trick the public into believing that Oswald was the
"lone nut killer" ( after all if LHO was the LNK then how would he
manage to kill a star witness, when he was locked in jail?)
DUH......
> > Crazy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
But I'll bet Walt The Kook believes that Lee E. Bowers, Jr. was
"bumped off" by the Goon Squad. What do ya bet?
I love watching the hapless mind of a CT-Kook at work, don't you?
BTW, Walt, why didn't Brennan put in his affidavit the fact that he
saw the actual shooter in the WEST-end window -- if that's where he
really saw him (which you so adamantly purport is the case)?
Did Howard just FORGET that tiny little detail in both his affidavit
and his WC testimony?
Walt
> ADDENDUM (MISC. BRENNAN THOUGHTS).........
>
> Hey Walt,
>
> Why wasn't Howard Leslie Brennan "rubbed out" by the "Mystery Death
> Squad" shortly after Nov. 22 (since his affidavit and his initial
> comments to the press were, per you, so damaging to the
> "conspirators")?
>
> And why wasn't Brennan's affidavit simply destroyed (or changed in
> some way)?
>
> Many CT-Kooks think that the "Plotters/Conspirators" could do almost
> any damn thing they wanted in order to cover up their heinous act of
> murder and conspiracy in Dallas on 11/22/63 (e.g., the plotters, per
> the Mega-Kooks, supposedly coerced witnesses one after another; they
> even KILLED many witnesses; they altered the Z-Film; they altered the
> official autopsy photos & X-rays; they planted all kinds of "LHO Did
> It" evidence at various locations; they created "Double Oswalds" for
> various uses prior to 11/22; and they faked the backyard photos too;
> plus several other covert acts as well, per CTers)....
>
> ....And yet they were shy about ripping up a piece of paper with
> Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit printed on it??
Oh, you mean like they did with Dom Benavides affidavit???
Perhaps the reason they didn't destroy HB's affidavit was because the
affadavits were taken by different law enforcement agencies. ... Or
maybe he had already gave out that information on the TV film footage,
which thousands had heard.
It would have been obvious that a very vocal witness, like HB, would
have been a valuable witness, and the cops most certainly would have
him give and sign an affidavit.
The FACT that there is no affidavit in the records for a valuable
witness like Domingo Benavides speaks volumes!
>
> And: they don't bother to "rub out" the ONLY EYEWITNESS (Brennan) who,
> per Walt, actually saw with his own eyeballs a NON-OSWALD assassin
> firing a rifle at John Kennedy??
They knew they could scare him into dancing to their tune.... Who
wouldn't dance their two step, after seeing them gun down Oswald in
the police station in front of millions of TV viewers??? Would you
step to their tune??
> The plotters' priorities were kinda screwed up, weren't they? They
> would much rather hunt down and kill (or try to kill) people like
> Warren Reynolds and Domingo Benavides' brother.
>
> Crazy.
Hey!!....Yer using a new signature. Great!!..it fits you perfectly.
Walt