Howard Brennan

[David Emerling]

Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.

Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
6th floor gunman!

If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
That's a very quick-thinking lie!

There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.

Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
window?

Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.

Mark Lane (and others) have tried to say that Brennan wasn't wearing his
glasses. But Brennan only used glasses for reading. He was far-sighted
which means he could see perfectly at distances. Can you imagine how this
would have played out in a courtroom had Mark Lane tried to discredit
Howard Brennan in this manner? It would have been a huge embarrassment!

Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I'm going to show you a document. It's a statement
from a police officer who claimed that you gave him a description of a
gunman you observed shooting from the depository."

Brennan: [gets out his glasses to read the document]

Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I notice you are putting on glasses. Were you wearing
your glasses when you made your observations on November 22nd, 1963?"

Brennan: "No, I was not."

Lane: "Then, how could you accurately make a description without the
benefit of your glasses?"

Brennan: "Well, these are reading glasses and ..."

Lane: [quickly interrupting] Thanks, Mr. Brennan - again, I turn your
attention to the document ..."

Prosecution: "Objection! Your honor, I think the witness should be allowed
to finish his answer."

Judge: "Sustained." [turning to Mr. Brennan] "Mr. Brennan, you may finish
answering."

Brennan: "Like I was saying - I only need these glasses when I read. The
reason I wasn't wearing my glasses on November 22nd is because I wanted to
see the motorcade. My far vision is perfect."

Doh!

In fact, had he been wearing his glasses, the 6th floor window would have
been blurry. The window was approximately 100 feet away from Brennan's
position - a little further than the distance from home to 1st base on a
baseball diamond. Anybody who wears reading glasses knows exactly what I'm
talking about. Hell, I'm an airline pilot and I have to remove my reading
glasses prior to landing the jet. I have to have them on to read the
approach plate, however.

To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
floor gunman!

The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
(unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
the same - huh?

Then the conspiracy crowd makes a big deal about how Brennan mistakenly
believed Oswald was standing. That is easily explainable by the fact that
the window on the 6th floor was only about 18 inches off the floor. That
is somewhat unusual and there is no way anybody on the street could
possibly know that. Brennan just assumed that the window was at a normal,
higher height. That's a completely understandable mistake.

Most of the conspiracy theorists' criticisms of Brennan are red herrings
that are ignoring an inescapable fact - he saw SOMEBODY shooting from the
6th floor sniper's nest.

Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
extemporaneous and corroborated observation.

Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?

In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
they have only the following choices.
1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.

#2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
single depository employee.

[bigdog]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

>
> Mark Lane (and others) have tried to say that Brennan wasn't wearing his
> glasses. But Brennan only used glasses for reading. He was far-sighted
> which means he could see perfectly at distances. Can you imagine how this
> would have played out in a courtroom had Mark Lane tried to discredit
> Howard Brennan in this manner? It would have been a huge embarrassment!
>

We don't have to imagine. That happened in My Cousin Vinnie.

> Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I'm going to show you a document. It's a statement
> from a police officer who claimed that you gave him a description of a
> gunman you observed shooting from the depository."
>
> Brennan: [gets out his glasses to read the document]
>
> Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I notice you are putting on glasses. Were you wearing
> your glasses when you made your observations on November 22nd, 1963?"
>
> Brennan: "No, I was not."
>
> Lane: "Then, how could you accurately make a description without the
> benefit of your glasses?"
>
> Brennan: "Well, these are reading glasses and ..."
>
> Lane: [quickly interrupting] Thanks, Mr. Brennan - again, I turn your
> attention to the document ..."
>
> Prosecution: "Objection! Your honor, I think the witness should be allowed
> to finish his answer."
>
> Judge: "Sustained." [turning to Mr. Brennan] "Mr. Brennan, you may finish
> answering."
>
> Brennan: "Like I was saying - I only need these glasses when I read. The
> reason I wasn't wearing my glasses on November 22nd is because I wanted to
> see the motorcade. My far vision is perfect."
>
> Doh!
>

That's pretty close to what happened in My Cousin Vinnie. The embarassed
defense attorney went back to the table and told his client, "Boy, he's a
tough one".

> In fact, had he been wearing his glasses, the 6th floor window would have
> been blurry. The window was approximately 100 feet away from Brennan's
> position - a little further than the distance from home to 1st base on a
> baseball diamond. Anybody who wears reading glasses knows exactly what I'm
> talking about. Hell, I'm an airline pilot and I have to remove my reading
> glasses prior to landing the jet. I have to have them on to read the
> approach plate, however.
>
> To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> floor gunman!
>

Exactly. Brennan could not have known they would later find shells at that
window so those shell are independent corroboration for Brennan's
identification of the SE corner window on the 6th floor. This pretty much
shoots down thosw witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. Only
a handful said they came from more than one place.

[donald willis]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>
> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> 6th floor gunman!

a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".

b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
The man could not have done this at a half-open window. And he *would*
not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
to that area of the depository

>
> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>

Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.

> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>
> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> window?

Euins said the suspect was a "colored man". Jackson also said that the
suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.

"That EXACT window"?--hardly....
dcw

[claviger]

There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.

We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.

Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.

Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
shots from the GK.

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>

Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.

> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> 6th floor gunman!
>

It's doubtful that Brennan was part of any conspiracy. And yes, you've
figured it out! There WAS a 6th floor gunman, and that was seen by a
number of people, not just Brennan.

Do you find it gives you a secure feeling to call people names that
don't agree with you?

> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>
> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>

Yep, it includes many people. And when Brennan saw Oswald on TV twice
that night, it helped him greatly when he went down to the lineup the next
day to ID him.

> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> window?
>

Umm. Check into Brennan's sworn testimony. He thought at first that
there was NO scope on the rifle he said he saw in the window. The lawyer
got him to say he wasn't sure by asking him some questions. I haven't
seen ANYONE say that Brennan was lying. However, Amos Euins was within
feet of Brennan's position and was unable to make out details of the man
in the window, and he was a teen with good vision. How was Brennan able
to see what Euins couldn't? Now the window Brennan saw a gun poke out of
was indeed the same window everyone else saw a gun poke out of. No
problem there.

> Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
>

Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
Oswald's rifle to fire out the window. But they weren't trying to hit JFK
particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
rifle out that window. Another shooter ion another location would do the
real shooting to kill.

A 6th floor gunman has been an accepted fact here at this forum for a
good while. Your preaching to the choir. However, for reasons I've given
above, Howard Brennan was discredited as a witness that identified Oswald.
He was useful only as a witness that saw a rifle, though he didn't know it
had scope. Here's Brennan's testimony:

"Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that
window?
Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some
type of a high-powered rifle.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether
it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did
not, or don't you know?
Mr. BRENNAN. I do not know if it had a scope or not."

> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
> the same - huh?
>
> Then the conspiracy crowd makes a big deal about how Brennan mistakenly
> believed Oswald was standing. That is easily explainable by the fact that
> the window on the 6th floor was only about 18 inches off the floor. That
> is somewhat unusual and there is no way anybody on the street could
> possibly know that. Brennan just assumed that the window was at a normal,
> higher height. That's a completely understandable mistake.
>
> Most of the conspiracy theorists' criticisms of Brennan are red herrings
> that are ignoring an inescapable fact - he saw SOMEBODY shooting from the
> 6th floor sniper's nest.
>

Yep, all the CTs I know here agree with you, as do I.

> Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
>
> Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
>

I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
fire.

> In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> they have only the following choices.
> 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
>
> #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> single depository employee.

Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
that day, and then fired it out the window too. Remember, the intent of
much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
problem of being chased down and imprisoned.

If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone. He
bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
a rough, tough rebel ready for action. As soon as he had the photos, he
rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.

Chris

[BOZ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BezYOOa8_LE

[Anthony Marsh]

Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.

He can confirm that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD. Lots of
other witnesses confirmed that and even the acoustical evidence proved
it. What else you got?

> well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
> was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
> evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
> who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
>
> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO

No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.

> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.

Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
You are ASSuMING again.

> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above

Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
sniper's nest.

> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>

A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.

> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>

That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.

> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> shots from the GK.
>
>

No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> >
> > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > 6th floor gunman!
>
> a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
>

So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
shells were found on the floor where the rifle was found which was owned
by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter.

> b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> The man could not have done this at a half-open window. And he *would*
> not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> to that area of the depository
>

As Bud often points out, you guys focus on all the wrong stuff. Bullets,
shells, rifle, fingerprints, and an eyewitness all point to the same guy.
Oswald.

> >
> > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> >
>
> Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
> floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
>

It would be difficult for Brennan to estimate Oswalds' height or weight
but that is a question a cop is trained to ask so Brennan gave it his best
shot. No big deal.

> > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> >
> > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > window?
>
> Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".

And later said he wasn't sure if he was black or white. I wouldn't want to
go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.

> Jackson also said that the
> suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
>

Focusing on all the wrong stuff again.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> >
>
>
> Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
>

Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
so it must be the testimony that is faulty.

>
>
> > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > 6th floor gunman!
> >
>
>
> It's doubtful that Brennan was part of any conspiracy. And yes, you've
> figured it out! There WAS a 6th floor gunman, and that was seen by a
> number of people, not just Brennan.
>
> Do you find it gives you a secure feeling to call people names that
> don't agree with you?
>
>
>
> > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> >
> > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> >
>
>
> Yep, it includes many people. And when Brennan saw Oswald on TV twice
> that night, it helped him greatly when he went down to the lineup the next
> day to ID him.
>

And it was just an amazing coincidence that he identified the guy who
owned the rifle, had his fingerprints all over the sniper's nest, and
fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. What are the odds?

>
>
> > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > window?
> >
>
>
> Umm. Check into Brennan's sworn testimony. He thought at first that
> there was NO scope on the rifle he said he saw in the window. The lawyer
> got him to say he wasn't sure by asking him some questions. I haven't
> seen ANYONE say that Brennan was lying. However, Amos Euins was within
> feet of Brennan's position and was unable to make out details of the man
> in the window, and he was a teen with good vision. How was Brennan able
> to see what Euins couldn't? Now the window Brennan saw a gun poke out of
> was indeed the same window everyone else saw a gun poke out of. No
> problem there.
>

So they didn't get everything right. Few witnesses do. That's why we
compare what they say with the physical evidence. That physical evidence
indicates Brennan got the location and the shooter correct.

>
>
> > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> >
>
>
> Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.

What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.

> But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
> rifle out that window. Another shooter ion another location would do the
> real shooting to kill.
>

So their plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing from two different
locations?

Did you check with Don Willis before you wrote that?

So you disregard all the things Brennan said that have been corroborated
by physical evidence because he didn't notice the rifle had a scope.

>
>
>
> > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> >
> > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> >
>
>
> I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> fire.
>

And saw who did it.

>
>
> > In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> > they have only the following choices.
> > 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> > 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
> >
> > #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> > Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> > in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> > single depository employee.
>
>
>
> Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
> for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
> that day, and then fired it out the window too.

Yet you not only can't tell us who that was, you can't even tell us who
that could have been.

> Remember, the intent of
> much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
>

Which explains why they fired from two different locations.

> If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
> them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone. He
> bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
> received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
> revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
> a rough, tough rebel ready for action. As soon as he had the photos, he
> rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.

When you go here, this is where I zone out.

>
> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Obviously never watched the movie. He used a tape measure to measure out
50 feet from the witness stand. Mark Lane would have done the same
thing. But measuring the distance from the wall of the reflecting pool
to the sniper's nest recreation and likewise Brennan would have failed.
"I can't see the man with all those boxes in the way. Were they there on
the day of the shooting?"

>> In fact, had he been wearing his glasses, the 6th floor window would have
>> been blurry. The window was approximately 100 feet away from Brennan's

Approximately? As in you don't know. Because you are a WC defender you
never know the facts. BTW, I proved that the FBI got the distance wrong
because the West map was wrong.

>> position - a little further than the distance from home to 1st base on a
>> baseball diamond. Anybody who wears reading glasses knows exactly what I'm
>> talking about. Hell, I'm an airline pilot and I have to remove my reading
>> glasses prior to landing the jet. I have to have them on to read the
>> approach plate, however.
>>
>> To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
>> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
>> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
>> floor gunman!
>>
>
> Exactly. Brennan could not have known they would later find shells at that
> window so those shell are independent corroboration for Brennan's
> identification of the SE corner window on the 6th floor. This pretty much

Identification of what? Some generic rifle. Prove that the Winchester he
saw fired the fatal shots. Did Oswald own a Winchester? And a Mauser?
And a Springfield in addition to his Carcano?

> shoots down thosw witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. Only
> a handful said they came from more than one place.
>
>

How many said ALL the shots came from the grassy knoll. Names and quotes
please.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>

> >=20

> > Mark Lane (and others) have tried to say that Brennan wasn't wearing

> > his=
> =20

> > glasses. But Brennan only used glasses for reading. He was

> > far-sighted=20 which means he could see perfectly at distances. Can you
> > imagine how this=
> =20

> > would have played out in a courtroom had Mark Lane tried to

> > discredit=20 Howard Brennan in this manner? It would have been a huge
> >embarrassment! =20

> We don't have to imagine. That happened in My Cousin Vinnie.

> =20

> > Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I'm going to show you a document. It's a

> > statement=20

> > from a police officer who claimed that you gave him a description of

> > a=20 gunman you observed shooting from the depository."
> >=20

> > Brennan: [gets out his glasses to read the document]

> >=20

> > Lane: "Mr. Brennan, I notice you are putting on glasses. Were you

> > wearing=
> =20

> > your glasses when you made your observations on November 22nd, 1963?"

> >=20

> > Brennan: "No, I was not."

> >=20
> > Lane: "Then, how could you accurately make a description without the=20
> > benefit of your glasses?"
> >=20

> > Brennan: "Well, these are reading glasses and ..."

> >=20

> > Lane: [quickly interrupting] Thanks, Mr. Brennan - again, I turn

> > your=20

> > attention to the document ..."

> >=20

> > Prosecution: "Objection! Your honor, I think the witness should be

> > allowe=
> d=20
> > to finish his answer."
> >=20

> > Judge: "Sustained." [turning to Mr. Brennan] "Mr. Brennan, you may

> > finish=
> =20
> > answering."
> >=20

> > Brennan: "Like I was saying - I only need these glasses when I read.

> > The=
> =20

> > reason I wasn't wearing my glasses on November 22nd is because I wanted

> > t=
> o=20

> > see the motorcade. My far vision is perfect."

> >=20
> > Doh!
> >=20
>

> That's pretty close to what happened in My Cousin Vinnie. The embarassed
> defense attorney went back to the table and told his client, "Boy, he's a
> tough one".
>
> > In fact, had he been wearing his glasses, the 6th floor window would

> > have=
> =20

> > been blurry. The window was approximately 100 feet away from

> > Brennan's=
> =20

> > position - a little further than the distance from home to 1st base on

> > a=
> =20

> > baseball diamond. Anybody who wears reading glasses knows exactly what

> > I'=
> m=20

> > talking about. Hell, I'm an airline pilot and I have to remove my

> > reading=
> =20
> > glasses prior to landing the jet. I have to have them on to read the=20
> > approach plate, however.
> >=20

> > To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard

> > Brennan'=
> s=20
> > description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate=20

> > observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a

> > 6th=
> =20
> > floor gunman!
> >=20

>
> Exactly. Brennan could not have known they would later find shells at
> that window so those shell are independent corroboration for Brennan's
> identification of the SE corner window on the 6th floor. This pretty much
> shoots down thosw witnesses who said all the shots came from the GK. Only
> a handful said they came from more than one place.

===========================================================================
==== NOBODY KNOWS IF THOSE WERE THE RIGINAL SHELLS FOUND BECAUSE FRITZ HELD
THEM IN HIS POCKET FOR A WHILE BEFORE HE THREW THEM DOWN ! ! !
===========================================================================
=======

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/3/2015 10:05 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>
> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> 6th floor gunman!
>

Unnecessary. You don't have to reach for conspiracy when simple errors
explains it.

> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>

Brennan saw SOMETHING. He could not positively identify Oswald, so just
use him a indicating someone in the TSBD.

> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>

No, Mr. Strawman, no one claimed that is exclude Oswald.
Boy, what a tough guy you are to point that out.
I'm so impressed, NOT.

> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a

The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shots were fired from the sniper's
nest. It doesn't prove WHO shot them. Just stop there.

> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> window?
>

Don't even try to bring in other witnesses. This is ONLY about Brennan.
If you even try to mention Euins I'll have to ask you if you think the
shooter was a black man and point out that the photograph evidence does
not show Euins standing where he said he was.

> Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
>

Why does it have to be someone who looked like Oswald if Brennan could
not remember what the guy looked like?

I know exactly what you are talking about and you are dancing around the
issue.

Brennan lied and he was not able to identify Oswald as the shooter. Just
cut your losses and use him only to confirm that SOMEONE was shooting from
that window.

> To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> floor gunman!
>

The acoustical evidence proved that.

> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed

You don't mind if Brennan was lying.

> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
> the same - huh?
>

He did not identify each seperately.
So you think all white men look the same?

> Then the conspiracy crowd makes a big deal about how Brennan mistakenly
> believed Oswald was standing. That is easily explainable by the fact that
> the window on the 6th floor was only about 18 inches off the floor. That
> is somewhat unusual and there is no way anybody on the street could
> possibly know that. Brennan just assumed that the window was at a normal,
> higher height. That's a completely understandable mistake.
>

The point is that it explains why he was wrong. First, admit that he
was wrong.

> Most of the conspiracy theorists' criticisms of Brennan are red herrings
> that are ignoring an inescapable fact - he saw SOMEBODY shooting from the
> 6th floor sniper's nest.
>

So what? There was SOMEONE shooting from the sniper's nest. Just stop
there. Accept the acoustical evidence.

> Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
>

Not my argument, but some kook claims that only blanks were fired from
the sniper's nest to draw attention to it. Wouldn't that be good enough
for you?

> Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
>

No, that is not the only way. We could call him a kook or a liar the way
the WC defenders do to witnesses they don't like.
I dismiss some of Brennan's claims because I can SEE that he isn't
looking up at the time of the shots.

> In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> they have only the following choices.
> 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
>

No one cares what you think.

> #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> single depository employee.
>

You need to order some new straw from China. You've created a shortage
here in the US. Either that or it's Global Warming.

[BOZ]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/HowardBrennan.jpg/300px-HowardBrennan.jpg

[donald willis]

Yeah, they all (except Euins) said the shooter was at a wide-open window!
This includes Brennan, Jackson, Edwards, Fischer, and Couch. In fact,
Fischer said that he couldn't have seen as much of the man as he did if
the window had not been open all the way.

dcw

[donald willis]

But the witness evidence was at best contradictory re the window, which
most said was open all the way, at least they said this when Belin asked.
(And Specter asked Jackson)....

dcw

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> >
> > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > 6th floor gunman!
>
> a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".

That would be meaningful, in a world where the location of the window
would be determined by it`s openness.

> b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> The man could not have done this at a half-open window.

Which could explain where Brennan got the idea the window was open more
than it was during the shooting. If Oswald had the window opened halfway
before the motorcade Brennan might have gotten the impression of a more
open window then.

> And he *would*
> not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> to that area of the depository

Your figuring has no impact on Oswald`s actions.

> >
> > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> >
>
> Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--

Proven wrong by the fact that this was done.

And it isn`t that difficult, you can give a guess of the weight of the
two black guys under the window with some degree of accuracy.

>the man was several
> floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
>
> > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> >
> > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > window?
>
> Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".

Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.

> Jackson also said that the
> suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
>
> "That EXACT window"?--hardly....

So the window was down a little bit from their impressions, so what?

> dcw

[Bud]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> >
>
>
> Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.

He was disregarded long ago by the conspiracy hobbyist who really like
the idea that Oswald was a patsy, but the opinions of such people don`t
count for anything.

>
> > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > 6th floor gunman!
> >
>
>
> It's doubtful that Brennan was part of any conspiracy. And yes, you've
> figured it out! There WAS a 6th floor gunman, and that was seen by a
> number of people, not just Brennan.
>
> Do you find it gives you a secure feeling to call people names that
> don't agree with you?

Was he wrong. If your ideas required Brennan to be "in-on-it" you`d have
no problem heaping him onto the huge pile of people your ideas require.

>
>
> > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> >
> > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> >
>
>
> Yep, it includes many people. And when Brennan saw Oswald on TV twice
> that night, it helped him greatly when he went down to the lineup the next
> day to ID him.

Brennan`s line-up was the same day. He didn`t make an identification of
Oswald at that time.

>
>
> > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > window?
> >
>
>
> Umm. Check into Brennan's sworn testimony. He thought at first that
> there was NO scope on the rifle he said he saw in the window. The lawyer
> got him to say he wasn't sure by asking him some questions. I haven't
> seen ANYONE say that Brennan was lying. However, Amos Euins was within
> feet of Brennan's position and was unable to make out details of the man
> in the window, and he was a teen with good vision.

You assume two people close together must observe and report the same
things. Maybe you just aren`t cut out for these things.

> How was Brennan able
> to see what Euins couldn't? Now the window Brennan saw a gun poke out of
> was indeed the same window everyone else saw a gun poke out of. No
> problem there.
>
>
>
> > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> >
>
>
> Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.

Fifty years of hobbyists imaging ninjas and leprechauns where they
aren`t needed.

> But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
> rifle out that window. Another shooter ion another location would do the
> real shooting to kill.

Sounds like a plot for a comic book.

You underestimate the capacity for silliness of your fellow conspiracy
hobbyist. Ask Don Willis if he thinks shots were fired from the sniper`s
nest. He doesn`t even accept that the guys on the fifth floor were under
that window. I think he might have the building right.

> Your preaching to the choir. However, for reasons I've given
> above, Howard Brennan was discredited as a witness that identified Oswald.
> He was useful only as a witness that saw a rifle, though he didn't know it
> had scope. Here's Brennan's testimony:
>
> "Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you. What kind of a gun did you see in that
> window?
> Mr. BRENNAN. I am not an expert on guns. It was, as I could observe, some
> type of a high-powered rifle.
> Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
> Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.
> Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had one? Do you know whether
> it did or not, or could you observe that it definitely did or definitely did
> not, or don't you know?
> Mr. BRENNAN. I do not know if it had a scope or not."

How does the fact that Brennan didn`t take note of the scope when Oswald
was firing at Kennedy discredit him?

Yes, they bet their lives on Oswald not having an alibi. He could have
been anywhere, but chose to be on the sixth floor shooting.

> If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
> them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone.

He bought it to shoot Walker, and narrowly missed killing him.

> He
> bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
> received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
> revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
> a rough, tough rebel ready for action.

And so he was.

> As soon as he had the photos, he
> rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.

He kept it here until he needed it again...

https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/d/dd/Photo_wcd497_011.jpg

> Chris

[mainframetech]

Amos Euins, a black teen was unsure if the person in the window was
black or white. He also said that he could see a bald spot on the head,
which I don't remember Oswald having. Euins was within feet of Brennan,
and could not make out very much detail, yet his eyes were OK.

> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>

Oswald brought in his rifle to work. What does that have to do with
Brennan and what he saw or didn't see? And BTW, the person in the 6th
floor window wasn't anywhere NEAR to being a 'sniper', since he didn't hit
anything with the MC rifle.

> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>

None of which makes Brennan a good witness.

> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> shots from the GK.

Brennan thought there was NO scope on the rifle. When the lawyer
asked him things he allowed that he wasn't sure. His wonderful position
wasn't that good, since Euins standing there near him couldn't make out
much of anything in the window. Brennan also saw Oswald on TV twice that
night before he went down to do a lineup the next day. We've seen how
easy it was for anyone to pick out the guy that was arrested by comparing
him to the others in the lineup. It was easy to do for even a
non-witness. Oswald was the only one in a T-shirt with a black eye, while
others were in suits or better clothing.

Brennan was discredited.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I haven't seen anyone argue against the 'nest' on the 6th floor.
Everyone I've seen agrees it was there. A number of witnesses saw SOMEONE
at that window with a rifle. The people that talked about the GK were the
ones that HEARD shots from that area, but that doesn't force us to assume
that shots were ONLY from the GK.

Chris

[Bud]

You think there is film of Brennan for the entire length of the
shooting? I suspect you are making this up.

> He can confirm that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD. Lots of
> other witnesses confirmed that and even the acoustical evidence proved
> it. What else you got?
>
> > well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
> > was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
> > evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
> > who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
> >
> > We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> > heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
>
> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
>
> > carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> > rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
>
> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
> You are ASSuMING again.

It makes a lot more sense than assuming Oswald left the rifle laying
around out in the open.

> > Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
>
> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
> sniper's nest.

Nobody considers the acoustical evidence to be worth anything any more,
do they?

> > their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> > more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
> >
>
> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.

Yes, another person in Oswald`s work using Oswald rifle and wearing
Oswald`s face. Rest, Sherlock.

> > Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> > seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> > the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> > floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> > left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> > house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
> >
>
> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.

Or a bullet proof vest.

> > Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> > sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> > a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> > shots from the GK.
> >
> >
>
> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.

Actually it`s the conspiracy hobbyists like yourself who misrepresent
the evidence in this case so they can blame other people for Oswald`s
crimes.

[Bud]

Why would Captain Fritz be carrying rifle shells in his pocket?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

We cannot see Brennan in the Z-film at the time of the third shot. Repeat:
the third shot. Again: the third shot.

He testified to the WC that he was not watching the window during the
first two shots, only the third.

He never testified that he saw Oswald fire the first two shots. Only the
third.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-7, A cutMalcolm Wallace kooks.

> >> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> >> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> >> single depository employee.
> >
> > There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
> > window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
>
> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.

I assume we can see that from the Z-film? This would confirm a suspicion
of mine. Brennan saw a man *before* the shooting acting very
conspicuously, drawing attention to himself & the area. He, Brennan,
looks away as the limo passes & the shots are fired. He looks back and
sees a man lingering in a window pretty near where he saw the other man.
He says the man is looking towards Elm near the limo. That was, I posit,
Bonnie Ray Williams. Check the Dillard & Powell photos. Williams is
looking in the direction of the underpass, and seems to be trying not to
be seen. Not because he was the shooter, but because he doesn't want to
be shot. Interviewed by reporters that day, he said the shooter was
slender and nice-looking. Well, the first half of that fits Oswald; both
halves fit Williams. Brennan looked away, looked back, & picked out
Williams. Like Euins, he thought a "colored man" was the shooter....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > >
> > > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > > 6th floor gunman!
> >
> > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> >
>
> So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> shells were found on the floor

Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!

where the rifle was found

ATF guy sez it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. And detectives
Johnson & Montgomery were guarding the "nest" on the 6th floor from about
1:10 to 2:30 and heard not a sound about a rifle's being found on that
floor. Of course, this was only from their same-weekend statements, & by
the time of their WC testimony, they had come around & belatedly heard the
discovery of the rifle!

which was owned
> by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter.

Yes, in amended lineup-records. In the first records, Brennan is not
mentioned. Do you always buy late-comers?

>
> > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > The man could not have done this at a half-open window. And he *would*
> > not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> > to that area of the depository
> >
>
> As Bud often points out, you guys focus on all the wrong stuff.

Anything that would challenge your beliefs, in other words?

Bullets,
> shells, rifle, fingerprints, and an eyewitness all point to the same guy.
> Oswald.

See above

> > >
> > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > >
> >
> > Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> > description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> > clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> > seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> > not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
> > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> >
>
> It would be difficult for Brennan to estimate Oswalds' height or weight
> but that is a question a cop is trained to ask so Brennan gave it his best
> shot. No big deal.

Isn't a cop trained to ask *where* a suspect was??!! Sawyer didn't!

> > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > >
> > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > window?
> >
> > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
>
> And later said he wasn't sure if he was black or white.

You seem to love "later" evidence, & not same-day evidence!

I wouldn't want to
> go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
> there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.
>
> > Jackson also said that the
> > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> >
>
> Focusing on all the wrong stuff again.

Poor evasive tactics, bigdog. You don't want to hear when witnesses
contradict your cherished beliefs.... So you must cherry pick....

dcw

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >

> > There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
> > window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
>
> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.
>

Right. It was just a lucky guess he pointed out the window where the
shells were later found.

> He can confirm that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD. Lots of
> other witnesses confirmed that and even the acoustical evidence proved
> it. What else you got?
>

The accoustical "evidence" wasn't even recorded during the shooting.

> > well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
> > was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
> > evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
> > who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
> >
> > We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> > heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
>
> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
>

No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper
bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
denying again.

> > carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> > rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
>
> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
> You are ASSuMING again.
>

What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
believe.

> > Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
>
> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
> sniper's nest.
>

We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
out to be bogus anyway.

> > their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> > more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
> >
>
> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
>

Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.

> > Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> > seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> > the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> > floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> > left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> > house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
> >
>
> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
>

There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
lawyer.

> > Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> > sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> > a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> > shots from the GK.
> >
> >
>
> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.

You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
working.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:15:01 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> ===========================================================================
> ==== NOBODY KNOWS IF THOSE WERE THE RIGINAL SHELLS FOUND BECAUSE FRITZ HELD
> THEM IN HIS POCKET FOR A WHILE BEFORE HE THREW THEM DOWN ! ! !
> ===========================================================================

More conspiracy hobbyist lore.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:07:26 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > >
> > > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > > 6th floor gunman!
> >
> > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> >
>
> So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> shells were found on the floor where the rifle was found which was owned
> by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter.
>

Wasn't much of an ID. He saw Oswald on TV twice the night before he
went down to do the lineup!

> > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > The man could not have done this at a half-open window. And he *would*
> > not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> > to that area of the depository
> >
>
> As Bud often points out, you guys focus on all the wrong stuff. Bullets,
> shells, rifle, fingerprints, and an eyewitness all point to the same guy.
> Oswald.
>

Nope, wrong! All that stuff doesn't point to Oswald, but some folks
would have liked it to. There's a thin reason for Oswald's prints to be
on boxes on the 6th floor of the TSBD, where he worked, but why would
there be a fingerprint of LBJ's personal killer (Wallace) there? Talk
about coincidence!

> > >
> > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > >
> >
> > Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> > description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> > clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> > seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> > not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
> > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> >
>
> It would be difficult for Brennan to estimate Oswalds' height or weight
> but that is a question a cop is trained to ask so Brennan gave it his best
> shot. No big deal.
>

Something wrong with Brennan seeing all that he did when others couldn't
see that much. Amos Euins was standing within a few feet of where Brennan
was and couldn't make out if the shooter was white or black. He could
only tell that the person had a big bald spot, which Oswald didn't have.

> > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > >
> > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > window?
> >
> > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
>
> And later said he wasn't sure if he was black or white. I wouldn't want to
> go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
> there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.
>

True that Euins, as a teen was in good health and had good eyesight,
yet he was unable to see very much from about the same position as
Brennan. Perhaps the police helped Brennan out, as they have been known
to do on occasion. The lineup was certainly a setup, with Oswald dressed
as a complete stand out.

> > Jackson also said that the
> > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> >
>
> Focusing on all the wrong stuff again.

Brennan was discredited, for a variety of reasons, as noted above.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> >
>
> Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
>

And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)

> >
> >
> > > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > > 6th floor gunman!
> > >
> >
> >
> > It's doubtful that Brennan was part of any conspiracy. And yes, you've
> > figured it out! There WAS a 6th floor gunman, and that was seen by a
> > number of people, not just Brennan.
> >
> > Do you find it gives you a secure feeling to call people names that
> > don't agree with you?
> >
> >
> >
> > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > >
> > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yep, it includes many people. And when Brennan saw Oswald on TV twice
> > that night, it helped him greatly when he went down to the lineup the next
> > day to ID him.
> >
>
> And it was just an amazing coincidence that he identified the guy who
> owned the rifle, had his fingerprints all over the sniper's nest, and
> fibers from his shirt on the butt plate of the rifle. What are the odds?
>

Oswald was grabbed by the cops and fit the mold they were expecting, as
he was set up to do. Brennan identified Oswald AFTER he had seen Oswald
on TV twice that night before he went to the phony lineup and made an
identification.

> >
> >
> > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > window?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Umm. Check into Brennan's sworn testimony. He thought at first that
> > there was NO scope on the rifle he said he saw in the window. The lawyer
> > got him to say he wasn't sure by asking him some questions. I haven't
> > seen ANYONE say that Brennan was lying. However, Amos Euins was within
> > feet of Brennan's position and was unable to make out details of the man
> > in the window, and he was a teen with good vision. How was Brennan able
> > to see what Euins couldn't? Now the window Brennan saw a gun poke out of
> > was indeed the same window everyone else saw a gun poke out of. No
> > problem there.
> >
>
> So they didn't get everything right. Few witnesses do. That's why we
> compare what they say with the physical evidence. That physical evidence
> indicates Brennan got the location and the shooter correct.
>

Nope, the evidence says that they got the 'nest' right. Not the
shooter, who was unable to be there on the 6th floor and still be found on
the 2nd floor 90 seconds later after the shots rang out.

> >
> >
> > > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> > Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.
>
> What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
> not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.
>

Nope, wrong! I never said that the person firing out the window wasn't
firing at JFK or trying to kill him, I said they didn't care that much if
they hit him or not because there were other shooters that were supposed
to do the job, and they did. Firing the MC rifle out the window was
necessary for the forensics. It had to be shown that the MC rifle
(associated with Oswald) did the shooting.

> > But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> > particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC

> > rifle out that window. Another shooter in another location would do the

> > real shooting to kill.
> >
>
> So their plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing from two different
> locations?
>

Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling begins: As noted before the
shooting out the window was for forensics. They had to be able to show
that the MC rifle (associated with Oswald) fired out the window, but the
shooter that was forward of the limo was the one that got off the kill
shot, it appears from the evidence from the autopsy and elsewhere. It was
expected that folks would not be able to tell where the shots came from,
and if they were muffled by silencers, only the 3 shots from the MC rifle
would he heard. It turns out the plan worked very well.

Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
the plaza!

Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!

Nope, WRONG again! When will you learn not to jump? I don't put
everything he said into the dumper just because of a single error where he
didn't see something that was there. His whole testimony has problems,
first because he was seeing things that a kid right next to him couldn't
see. Second the scope, third, that he saw TV twice with Oswald on it that
night. The worst of all, was that he saw stuff that no one else saw, and
they were not even close to what he saw. Very doubtful that he didn't
have help of some kind.

> > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > >
> > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > fire.
> >
>
> And saw who did it.
>

Nope, that's total bull. He couldn't see who it was. Amos Euins
standing right next to him with good eyes c9ouldn't even tell whether the
person was black or white. Naah, Brennan didn't see anymore than the kid.

> > > In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> > > they have only the following choices.
> > > 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> > > 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
> > >
> > > #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> > > Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> > > in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> > > single depository employee.
> >
> >
> >
> > Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
> > for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
> > that day, and then fired it out the window too.
>
> Yet you not only can't tell us who that was, you can't even tell us who
> that could have been.
>

If the investigation were done better, we might know who it was, or if
they would not have let Oswald be killed in their custody, we might know
everything.

> > Remember, the intent of
> > much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> > blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> > problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
> >
>
> Which explains why they fired from two different locations.
>

At least 2. They had to be sure that the murder worked. If JFK had
been left alive, there would have been heads rolling. And all the
political income they expected from the coming Vietnam effort would have
them all rolling in dough.

> > If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
> > them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone. He
> > bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
> > received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
> > revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
> > a rough, tough rebel ready for action. As soon as he had the photos, he
> > rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.
>
> When you go here, this is where I zone out.
>

LOL! Not just here...:) You lose it regularly and often! If you had
proof of something that opposed my statements I'm sure you would have
shown it by now...so you have none and quickly fall asleep. One of many
forms of escape...:)

Chris

[Allan G. Johnson]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>

> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> 6th floor gunman!
>

> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>
> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>

> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> window?
>

> Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
>

> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
> the same - huh?
>
> Then the conspiracy crowd makes a big deal about how Brennan mistakenly
> believed Oswald was standing. That is easily explainable by the fact that
> the window on the 6th floor was only about 18 inches off the floor. That
> is somewhat unusual and there is no way anybody on the street could
> possibly know that. Brennan just assumed that the window was at a normal,
> higher height. That's a completely understandable mistake.
>
> Most of the conspiracy theorists' criticisms of Brennan are red herrings
> that are ignoring an inescapable fact - he saw SOMEBODY shooting from the
> 6th floor sniper's nest.
>

> Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
>
> Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
>

> In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> they have only the following choices.
> 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
>
> #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> single depository employee.

Other points to consider: Howard Brennan also described the slow and
deliberate way the rifle was withdrawn from the window after the third
shot, which matches the exact same description from other eyewitnesses.
He also said in his report right after the shooting that he believed he
could recognize the shooter if he saw him again. It was only after going
home and talking with his family and later being brought back to Police
Headquarters by Secret Service agents that he thought it best not to
positively identify Oswald because he feared for his own safety and that
of his family in case there were others involved.

[donald willis]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7 cuto the case is NOT Howard Brennan's

> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> floor gunman!
>
> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
> the same - huh?

Brennan never said that he saw *three* men on the 5th floor. He said that
he saw only *two*--Norman and Jarman. However, at the hearings, when the
three were together he had the devil's own time IDins *which* two he saw!
It was pretty funny. Was it you I saw? Or you? etc. He said that he saw
the two when they first went to their respective windows, which makes
sense (whether or not it's true), because Williams testified that he came
late to those windows on the 5th floor. Brennan did not say that he saw
any of them *after* the shooting, which again makes sense, since his
attention was rather distracted by shooting.

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

FWIW, Euins was not standing near Brennan.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's right. Euins first said it was a black man. Then after they told
him his family would be killed in the ensuing race riot, he changed it
to a white man. That is exactly why Loftus warns us to look for the
earliest statement because the cops get to the witness.

[donald willis]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:27:37 PM UTC-7, BOZ wr cut

> > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man". Jackson also said that the
> > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> >
> > "That EXACT window"?--hardly....
> > dcw
>
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/HowardBrennan.jpg/300px-HowardBrennan.jpg

Brennan's testimony was contradictory, at best. When Belin showed him a
photo of the windows, he asked him if their configuration matched his
memory of what he saw. Brennan said something like, These do, referring
to the 5th-floor windows. But, he insisted, the 6th-floor "nest" window
did NOT look like what he remembered. He testified that it too looked
like the windows on the *5th* floor--that it was wide open, too! Of
course, this could not have been. But Belin was too chicken to challenge
him, although he kept asking other witnesses how wide they thought the
"nest" window was open, and they too responded that it was WIDE
OPEN--these would be Fischer, Edwards, and Couch, though the latter wasn't
sure. Fischer, however, was sure that it was open all the way--or he
could not have seen as much of the suspect as he did!

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

OK, so then you have to manufacture a new conspiracy theory that Fritz
came to the TSBD with a second set of shells to plant.
Are you really sure you want to go that far?

[donald willis]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:29:46 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > >
> > > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > > 6th floor gunman!
> >
> > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
>
> That would be meaningful, in a world where the location of the window
> would be determined by it`s openness.
>

Or in a world where testimony is actually looked at...

> > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > The man could not have done this at a half-open window.
>
> Which could explain where Brennan got the idea the window was open more
> than it was during the shooting. If Oswald had the window opened halfway
> before the motorcade Brennan might have gotten the impression of a more
> open window then.
>

Don't understand this reasoning.... And he specifically said that the
window was wide open *at the time of the shooting*.... (Although Marsh
says Brennan was NOT looking at the window at that time....)

> > And he *would*
> > not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> > to that area of the depository
>
> Your figuring has no impact on Oswald`s actions.
>

Yours does? Glad he could accommodate your "figuring" 50 years after the
fact!

> > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > >
> >
> > Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> > description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> > clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> > seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> > not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--
>
> Proven wrong by the fact that this was done.

Sawyer & co. needed someone, some witness, to validate his phony suspect
description, & Brennan stepped up, poor guy...

> And it isn`t that difficult, you can give a guess of the weight of the
> two black guys under the window with some degree of accuracy.

No, you can't. Also pretend you can guess Studebaker's height & weight in
the window in the hour after the shooting.... With Williams, yes, you can
say he was slender. Norman, too, perhaps....

> >the man was several
> > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> >
> > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > >
> > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > window?
> >
> > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
>
> Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.
>

In his statements, he varied as to how much of the shooter he could see.
Lane's book recounted how the Euins family was intimidated....

> > Jackson also said that the
> > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> >
> > "That EXACT window"?--hardly....
>
> So the window was down a little bit from their impressions, so what?
>

Strange though isn't it that there should be such unanimity on this point? And don't forget that Fischer added that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window had not been wide open....
> > dcw

Shining through all your comments, above, are the words "Help me!"
dcw

[donald willis]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:31:37 P cut

> > >
> > > To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
> > > description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> > > observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> > > floor gunman!
> > >
> >
> >
> > A 6th floor gunman has been an accepted fact here at this forum for a
> > good while.
>
> You underestimate the capacity for silliness of your fellow conspiracy
> hobbyist. Ask Don Willis if he thinks shots were fired from the sniper`s
> nest. He doesn`t even accept that the guys on the fifth floor were under
> that window. I think he might have the building right.

Let me correct this misperception. Williams was there. Norman & Jarman
were added to film & testimony after Williams was picked out as the
shooter. (See, for instance, the 12:37 police-radio message re a shot
from the second window from the end, upper right hand corner of the
depository--Williams' window.)

Okay, you don't know me....

> >
> >
> > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > >
> > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > >
> >
> >
> > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > fire.
> >

Anthony Marsh says he did not see it

[Robert Harris]

David Emerling wrote:
> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.

You worry too much about "us and them" and not nearly enough about the
evidence.

Howard Brennan said that he lied when he claimed he was unable to identify
Oswald in a lineup. That alone, makes him a dubious witness. Of course, he
wasn't part of the conspiracy, but it is obvious, that right or wrong, he
was persuaded by someone, to change his story.

The 6th floor is a long way up and no one else who saw that sniper, was
able to make the identification. Amos Euins for example, had no vision
issues and looked into that window as four shots were heard. He described
the sniper as an older man with a bald spot. He previously told a reporter
that he thought the sniper was a "negro".



Robert Harris

[David Emerling]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:06:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.

Yet, you agree that Brennan DID make a quick identification of a shooter,
firing a rifle that had a scope, from the southeast window on the 6th
floor of the depository - right?

So, whichever way you think he was looking - he DID make this
identification.

Oh - by the way - there WAS a sniper's nest located at the southeast
corner of the depository and, low and behold, a rifle with a scope was
found on that floor.

If Brennan was just making this up you have to give him credit for 1)
quick thinking and 2) being very lucky.

Do you think this latter statement is more likely true *or* do you think
that Howard Brennan really DID see a shooter firing a rifle with a scope
from the southeast corner?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:03:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > >
> > > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> > >
> >
> > So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> > shells were found on the floor
>
> Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
> picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!
>

So you think Fritz planted the shells there just to support Brennan's
identification of the 6th floor window as the source of the shots. You do
know that other people pointed to that same window. You do know that the
shells were found at that window before Fritz even arrived.

> where the rifle was found
>
> ATF guy sez it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. And detectives
> Johnson & Montgomery were guarding the "nest" on the 6th floor from about
> 1:10 to 2:30 and heard not a sound about a rifle's being found on that
> floor.

You're stretching. The rifle was found on the other side of the floor. And
why do you suppose they were guarding the nest if that isn't where the
shells were found? You guys never put things together. You take one bit of
information and dream something up from it without ever considering how it
fits with the entire body of evidence.

> Of course, this was only from their same-weekend statements, & by
> the time of their WC testimony, they had come around & belatedly heard the
> discovery of the rifle!
>

Quote them saying that no rifle was found on the 6th floor in their same
weekend statement or any other statement. Are you seriously trying to make
the argument that no rifle was found on the 6th floor?

>
> which was owned
> > by the guy Brennan IDed as the shooter.
>
>
> Yes, in amended lineup-records. In the first records, Brennan is not
> mentioned. Do you always buy late-comers?
>

I buy eyewitness accounts that can be corroborated, preferably by physical
evidence. Brennan's ID of Oswald passes that litmus test.

> >
> > > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > > The man could not have done this at a half-open window. And he *would*
> > > not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> > > to that area of the depository
> > >
> >
> > As Bud often points out, you guys focus on all the wrong stuff.
>
> Anything that would challenge your beliefs, in other words?

Irony alert.

>
> Bullets,
> > shells, rifle, fingerprints, and an eyewitness all point to the same guy.
> > Oswald.
>
> See above
>
> > > >
> > > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> > > description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> > > clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> > > seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> > > not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
> > > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> > >
> >
> > It would be difficult for Brennan to estimate Oswalds' height or weight
> > but that is a question a cop is trained to ask so Brennan gave it his best
> > shot. No big deal.
>
> Isn't a cop trained to ask *where* a suspect was??!! Sawyer didn't!
>

Brennan told him where the suspect was.

>
> > > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > > window?
> > >
> > > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
> >
> > And later said he wasn't sure if he was black or white.
>
> You seem to love "later" evidence, & not same-day evidence!
>

None of the physical evidence changed from one day to the next. Witness
testimony does change which is why it should not be considered reliable
from one day to the next. If one day a witness said the shooter was black
and the next day he said he was white, neither account should be assumed
to be true. When a witness changes his account, it's a pretty good
indication he was unsure about whatever point on which he made the
change.

> I wouldn't want to
> > go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
> > there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.
> >
> > > Jackson also said that the
> > > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> > >
> >
> > Focusing on all the wrong stuff again.
>
> Poor evasive tactics, bigdog. You don't want to hear when witnesses
> contradict your cherished beliefs.... So you must cherry pick....
>

On the contrary, when I read of conflicts, I try to resolve the conflicts
by seeing what fits the entire body of evidence and what doesn't.
Conspiracy hobbyists try to resolve conflicts by seeing what fits with
their theories. Witnesses are often wrong so it makes no sense to assume
any witness is right or wrong without trying to corroborate what they
said. Witnesses who give accounts which fit the body of evidence should be
believed and those whose accounts conflict with the body of evidence
should be dismissed.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> > >
> >
> > Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> > so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
> >
>
>
> And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
> he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)
>

He said what is corroborated by the physical evidence. Your bullshit
story, not so much.

The mold they were expecting was a guy who had just killed one of their
fellow officers. They didn't know at the time he also whacked JFK although
I wouldn't be surprised if that thought had crossed their minds.

> Brennan identified Oswald AFTER he had seen Oswald
> on TV twice that night before he went to the phony lineup and made an
> identification.
>

Which doesn't discredit his identification since the guy he identified
owned the rifle that fired the shells that were found at the window he saw
the shooter at.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > > window?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Umm. Check into Brennan's sworn testimony. He thought at first that
> > > there was NO scope on the rifle he said he saw in the window. The lawyer
> > > got him to say he wasn't sure by asking him some questions. I haven't
> > > seen ANYONE say that Brennan was lying. However, Amos Euins was within
> > > feet of Brennan's position and was unable to make out details of the man
> > > in the window, and he was a teen with good vision. How was Brennan able
> > > to see what Euins couldn't? Now the window Brennan saw a gun poke out of
> > > was indeed the same window everyone else saw a gun poke out of. No
> > > problem there.
> > >
> >
> > So they didn't get everything right. Few witnesses do. That's why we
> > compare what they say with the physical evidence. That physical evidence
> > indicates Brennan got the location and the shooter correct.
> >
>
>
> Nope, the evidence says that they got the 'nest' right. Not the
> shooter, who was unable to be there on the 6th floor and still be found on
> the 2nd floor 90 seconds later after the shots rang out.
>

Do you think anyone started a stopwatch after the last shot was fired to
see how long it was before Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor? How do you
know it was 90 seconds? How do you know it wasn't 100? Or two minutes? And
even if it was just 90 seconds, do you think it would take someone more
than 90 seconds to walk across a floor, lay a rifle down and walk down
four flites of stares.

>
> > > > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > > > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > > > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > > > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > > > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > > > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> > > Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.
> >
> > What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
> > not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.
> >
>
>
> Nope, wrong! I never said that the person firing out the window wasn't
> firing at JFK or trying to kill him, I said they didn't care that much if
> they hit him or not because there were other shooters that were supposed
> to do the job, and they did. Firing the MC rifle out the window was
> necessary for the forensics. It had to be shown that the MC rifle
> (associated with Oswald) did the shooting.
>

The MC rifle did do the shooting and there is not a scrap of physical
evidence of shots from any other location.

>
>
> > > But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> > > particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
> > > rifle out that window. Another shooter in another location would do the
> > > real shooting to kill.
> > >
> >
> > So their plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing from two different
> > locations?
> >
>
>
> Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling begins: As noted before the
> shooting out the window was for forensics. They had to be able to show
> that the MC rifle (associated with Oswald) fired out the window, but the
> shooter that was forward of the limo was the one that got off the kill
> shot, it appears from the evidence from the autopsy and elsewhere. It was
> expected that folks would not be able to tell where the shots came from,
> and if they were muffled by silencers, only the 3 shots from the MC rifle
> would he heard. It turns out the plan worked very well.
>

Well since you are inventing the GK shooter, I guess you get to give him
any kind of weapon you want. Of course you do realize that by arguing for
a silencer being used on the GK, you are throwing under the bus all the
witnesses who thought they heard shots from the GK as well as the
accoustical evidence which said shots came from there. That of course is
the most sensible thing you've done here.

> Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> the plaza!
>
> Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
>

Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
place.

He was the only one looking at the sniper's nest when the third shot was
fired. Everyone else looked up to see the gunman after the final shot.
There are no holes in Brennan's account. He pointed to the location where
the shells were found. He IDed the guy who owned the rifle that had fired
those spent shells and whose fingerprints were found at that location.
Pretty damn good corroboration. But of course you conspiracy hobbyists can
always come up with an excuse to dismiss any and all evidence against
Oswald just so you don't have to admit the obvious fact he killed JFK.

>
>
>
> > > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > > >
> > > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > > fire.
> > >
> >
> > And saw who did it.
> >
>
>
>
> Nope, that's total bull. He couldn't see who it was. Amos Euins
> standing right next to him with good eyes c9ouldn't even tell whether the
> person was black or white. Naah, Brennan didn't see anymore than the kid.
>

Just a lucky guess that the guy he identified owned the rifle that was
fired the shells found at the window where he saw the shooter.

>
>
>
> > > > In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> > > > they have only the following choices.
> > > > 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> > > > 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
> > > >
> > > > #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> > > > Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> > > > in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> > > > single depository employee.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
> > > for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
> > > that day, and then fired it out the window too.
> >
> > Yet you not only can't tell us who that was, you can't even tell us who
> > that could have been.
> >

> If the investigation were done better, we might know who it was, or if
> they would not have let Oswald be killed in their custody, we might know
> everything.
>

Oh, we're using the-dog-ate-my-evidence excuse today.

We do know who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. You just refuse to
admit it.

>
>
> > > Remember, the intent of
> > > much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> > > blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> > > problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
> > >
> >
> > Which explains why they fired from two different locations.
> >
>
>
> At least 2. They had to be sure that the murder worked. If JFK had
> been left alive, there would have been heads rolling. And all the
> political income they expected from the coming Vietnam effort would have
> them all rolling in dough.
>

We're back to accusing "they".

[David Emerling]

On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:05:45 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

CORRECTION: I was incorrect that Howard Brennan said that the weapon he
observed had a scope. He only said that it was a rifle.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2015 11:04 AM, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:31:37 P cut
>>>>
>>>> To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
>>>> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
>>>> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
>>>> floor gunman!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A 6th floor gunman has been an accepted fact here at this forum for a
>>> good while.
>>
>> You underestimate the capacity for silliness of your fellow conspiracy
>> hobbyist. Ask Don Willis if he thinks shots were fired from the sniper`s
>> nest. He doesn`t even accept that the guys on the fifth floor were under
>> that window. I think he might have the building right.
>
> Let me correct this misperception. Williams was there. Norman & Jarman
> were added to film & testimony after Williams was picked out as the
> shooter. (See, for instance, the 12:37 police-radio message re a shot
> from the second window from the end, upper right hand corner of the
> depository--Williams' window.)
>

That does not pinpoint Williams' window and the cops always got the
numbering of the floors wrong. You got nothing.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2015 9:23 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7 cuto the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
>> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
>> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
>> floor gunman!
>>
>> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
>> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
>> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
>> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
>> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
>> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
>> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
>> the same - huh?
>
> Brennan never said that he saw *three* men on the 5th floor. He said that
> he saw only *two*--Norman and Jarman. However, at the hearings, when the

Did he name them? Can you quote that testimony?

[Anthony Marsh]

Which ones? List and quote them side by side so that we can see how well
they match up. You expect disparate witnesses from different backgrounds
to match word for word? Usually that indicates collusion.

> He also said in his report right after the shooting that he believed he

Whose report? To whom did he report? Is this just hearsay?

> could recognize the shooter if he saw him again. It was only after going
> home and talking with his family and later being brought back to Police
> Headquarters by Secret Service agents that he thought it best not to
> positively identify Oswald because he feared for his own safety and that
> of his family in case there were others involved.
>

And after seeing Oswald on TV. It helped that Oswald was the only one in
the lineup wearing a T-shirt and having a black eye.
You could get any kindergartener at random to pick out the bad guy with
a line up like that, even if there was no crime committed.
48 Hours did a program about the problems with lineups.

[Bud]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:00:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:29:46 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > >
> > > > Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
> > > > was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
> > > > but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
> > > > SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
> > > > 6th floor gunman!
> > >
> > > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> >
> > That would be meaningful, in a world where the location of the window
> > would be determined by it`s openness.
> >
>
> Or in a world where testimony is actually looked at...

If you looked at the testimony you`d know which window they indicated.

> > > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > > The man could not have done this at a half-open window.
> >
> > Which could explain where Brennan got the idea the window was open more
> > than it was during the shooting. If Oswald had the window opened halfway
> > before the motorcade Brennan might have gotten the impression of a more
> > open window then.
> >
>
> Don't understand this reasoning.... And he specifically said that the
> window was wide open *at the time of the shooting*....

He may have assumed this but the impression may have been formed by his
earlier observations.

> (Although Marsh
> says Brennan was NOT looking at the window at that time....)

I challenged Marsh to support this before and he couldn`t, yet he still
repeats this meaningless claim.

> > > And he *would*
> > > not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> > > to that area of the depository
> >
> > Your figuring has no impact on Oswald`s actions.
> >
>
> Yours does?

No figuring required, he did what he did. If Brennan says he sat on the
windowsill I see no reason to believe he made it up. If Whaley says he
offered his cab to some woman then I suppose he did. If he said he was a
patsy, then he did. None of these things are incompatible with him killing
Kennedy.

> Glad he could accommodate your "figuring" 50 years after the
> fact!
>
> > > > If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> > > > a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> > > > minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> > > > after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> > > > That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> > > description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> > > clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> > > seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> > > not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--
> >
> > Proven wrong by the fact that this was done.
>
> Sawyer & co. needed someone, some witness, to validate his phony suspect
> description, & Brennan stepped up, poor guy...

Yes, that is the choice, either everybody was out to get Oswald or he
was just guilty.

> > And it isn`t that difficult, you can give a guess of the weight of the
> > two black guys under the window with some degree of accuracy.
>
> No, you can't. Also pretend you can guess Studebaker's height & weight in
> the window in the hour after the shooting.... With Williams, yes, you can
> say he was slender. Norman, too, perhaps....

So you admit it`s possible to estimate someone`s weight in this manner.

> > >the man was several
> > > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> > >
> > > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > > >
> > > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > > window?
> > >
> > > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
> >
> > Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.
> >
>
> In his statements, he varied as to how much of the shooter he could see.

Yah, witnesses will do that.

> Lane's book recounted how the Euins family was intimidated....

Maybe they has something to hide.

> > > Jackson also said that the
> > > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> > >
> > > "That EXACT window"?--hardly....
> >
> > So the window was down a little bit from their impressions, so what?
> >
> Strange though isn't it that there should be such unanimity on this point?

It`s strange that you find such a trivial detail significant.

> And don't forget that Fischer added that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window had not been wide open....

Again, it may have been opened further at that time.

> > > dcw
>
> Shining through all your comments, above, are the words "Help me!"
> dcw

I`m not the one that needs help.

[Anthony Marsh]

False. Wallace's print was NOT found in the TSBD.
You pick up too many kook theories.

>
>
>>>>
>>>> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
>>>> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
>>>> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
>>>> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
>>>> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
>>> description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
>>> clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
>>> seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
>>> not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--the man was several
>>> floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
>>> would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
>>> Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
>>> depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
>>>
>>
>> It would be difficult for Brennan to estimate Oswalds' height or weight
>> but that is a question a cop is trained to ask so Brennan gave it his best
>> shot. No big deal.
>>
>
>
> Something wrong with Brennan seeing all that he did when others couldn't
> see that much. Amos Euins was standing within a few feet of where Brennan

No, Euins was not standing within a few feet of where Brennan was.

> was and couldn't make out if the shooter was white or black. He could

No, he was sure that the shooter was black until the cops told him that
could cause a race riot. Then he changed his story. That's why Loftus
warns us to look for the earliest statements before cops have forced the
witness to change his story.

> only tell that the person had a big bald spot, which Oswald didn't have.
>
>
>
>>>> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
>>>> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
>>>> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
>>>> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
>>>> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
>>>> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
>>>> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
>>>> window?
>>>
>>> Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
>>
>> And later said he wasn't sure if he was black or white. I wouldn't want to
>> go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
>> there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.
>>
>
>
> True that Euins, as a teen was in good health and had good eyesight,
> yet he was unable to see very much from about the same position as
> Brennan. Perhaps the police helped Brennan out, as they have been known

Not close to Brennan.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2015 9:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>> There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
>>> window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
>>
>> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
>> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.
>>
>
> Right. It was just a lucky guess he pointed out the window where the
> shells were later found.
>

Oh, you mean the 5th floor, as per the police report?

>> He can confirm that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD. Lots of
>> other witnesses confirmed that and even the acoustical evidence proved
>> it. What else you got?
>>
>
> The accoustical "evidence" wasn't even recorded during the shooting.
>

Propaganda.

>>> well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
>>> was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
>>> evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
>>> who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
>>>
>>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
>>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
>>
>> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
>>
>
> No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
> sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper

Yes a 2 foot bag. Not long enough to hold the disassembled Carcano.

> bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
> denying again.
>

Show me the crime scene photo of the bag in place.
We have the photos of Wade standing in that area. So why aren't his shoe
prints on the bag?

>>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
>>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
>>
>> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
>> You are ASSuMING again.
>>
>
> What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
> sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
> believe.

So you can't prove your claims. No surprise there.

>
>>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
>>
>> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
>> sniper's nest.
>>
>
> We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
> out to be bogus anyway.
>

You ASSuMEd that.

>>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
>>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>>>
>>
>> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
>>
>
> Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.
>

Only when you want to frame him.

>>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
>>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
>>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th

You are making up a false narrative. Brennan did not talk to Baker, who
is the cop who confronted Oswald.

Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
misrepresent historical facts to frame people.

>>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
>>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
>>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>>>
>>
>> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
>> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
>>
>
> There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
> acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
> lawyer.
>

Spence threw the case for money.

>
>>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
>>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
>>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
>>> shots from the GK.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
>> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
>
> You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
> working.
>
>

Again, I have no interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
I just don't like it when Nazis frame people.

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:03:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > > > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> > > shells were found on the floor
> >
> > Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
> > picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!
> >
>
> So you think Fritz planted the shells there just to support Brennan's
> identification of the 6th floor window as the source of the shots.

I kinda doubt Fritz had heard of Brennan before 1:15pm or so that day.
And Brennan went out of his way to REJECT the appearance of the "nest"
window and to ID a wide-open window.

You do
> know that other people pointed to that same window.

Actually, no one designated that window. Unless you count Euins'
testimony and discount his earlier ID of a "colored man" as the shooter.
Cherry pick all you want....

You do know that the
> shells were found at that window before Fritz even arrived.
>
> > where the rifle was found
> >
> > ATF guy sez it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. And detectives
> > Johnson & Montgomery were guarding the "nest" on the 6th floor from about
> > 1:10 to 2:30 and heard not a sound about a rifle's being found on that
> > floor.
>
> You're stretching. The rifle was found on the other side of the floor.

It was a big event. There was shouting. Searchers heard Boone yelling
all around the floor. And it was otherwise so quiet up there that
Montgomery & Johnson could hear a police radio out front reporting
Tippit's murder. And they couldn't hear the noisy rifle find?

And
> why do you suppose they were guarding the nest if that isn't where the
> shells were found?

The "nest" was found there, not the shells. They mention no shells.
They just say the scene of the shooting....

You guys never put things together. You take one bit of
> information and dream something up from it without ever considering how it
> fits with the entire body of evidence.
>
> > Of course, this was only from their same-weekend statements, & by
> > the time of their WC testimony, they had come around & belatedly heard the
> > discovery of the rifle!
> >
>
> Quote them saying that no rifle was found on the 6th floor in their same
> weekend statement or any other statement.

Why would they report something that didn't happen, and they had not
knowledge of?? C'mon, big d....

Are you seriously trying to make
> the argument that no rifle was found on the 6th floor?
>

Duh. Yes.

Some was, however, moved around, from one hour to the next, on Friday!

Witness
> testimony does change which is why it should not be considered reliable
> from one day to the next. If one day a witness said the shooter was black
> and the next day he said he was white, neither account should be assumed
> to be true. When a witness changes his account, it's a pretty good
> indication he was unsure about whatever point on which he made the
> change.
>
> > I wouldn't want to
> > > go to court with Euins as my star witness but if Oswald had stood trial,
> > > there would have been so much more compelling evidence against him.
> > >
> > > > Jackson also said that the
> > > > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > > > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Focusing on all the wrong stuff again.
> >
> > Poor evasive tactics, bigdog. You don't want to hear when witnesses
> > contradict your cherished beliefs.... So you must cherry pick....
> >
>
> On the contrary, when I read of conflicts, I try to resolve the conflicts
> by seeing what fits the entire body of evidence and what doesn't.
> Conspiracy hobbyists try to resolve conflicts by seeing what fits with
> their theories. Witnesses are often wrong so it makes no sense to assume
> any witness is right or wrong without trying to corroborate what they
> said. Witnesses who give accounts which fit the body of evidence should be
> believed and those whose accounts conflict with the body of evidence
> should be dismissed.

Five witnesses corroborated each other re how wide the shooter's window
was open! And you assume that that "body of evidence" was untampered
with, although 3 witnesses said Fritz picked up the hulls, and Fritz later
all-but-denied that he picked them up--he couldn't quite go all the way
into an outright lie....

dcw

[BOZ]

BRENNAN PLANTED THE SNIPER'S NEST.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2015 9:02 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-7, A cutMalcolm Wallace kooks.

>>>> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
>>>> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
>>>> single depository employee.
>>>

>>> There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
>>> window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
>>
>> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
>> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.
>

> I assume we can see that from the Z-film? This would confirm a suspicion
> of mine. Brennan saw a man *before* the shooting acting very

Not just the Zapruder film. Also the Dorman film. In the Zapruder film
we can see Brennan looking up Elm Street to see the limo.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/z-183_Reg.gif

> conspicuously, drawing attention to himself & the area. He, Brennan,
> looks away as the limo passes & the shots are fired. He looks back and
> sees a man lingering in a window pretty near where he saw the other man.


Show that to me. Don't just ASSuMe it.

> He says the man is looking towards Elm near the limo. That was, I posit,
> Bonnie Ray Williams. Check the Dillard & Powell photos. Williams is
> looking in the direction of the underpass, and seems to be trying not to

WHEN? Long after the shooting is over?

> be seen. Not because he was the shooter, but because he doesn't want to
> be shot. Interviewed by reporters that day, he said the shooter was
> slender and nice-looking. Well, the first half of that fits Oswald; both
> halves fit Williams. Brennan looked away, looked back, & picked out
> Williams. Like Euins, he thought a "colored man" was the shooter....
>

No, Brennan never said anything about Williams. You are just making up
crap.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/5/2015 8:59 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:06:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>> On 4/4/2015 12:33 PM, claviger wrote:

>>> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 9:05:45 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>>> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
>>>> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>>>>
>>>> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
>>>> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
>>>> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
>>>> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
>>>> 6th floor gunman!
>>>>

>>>> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
>>>> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
>>>> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
>>>> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
>>>> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>>>>

>>>> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
>>>> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
>>>> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>>>>
>>>> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
>>>> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
>>>> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
>>>> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
>>>> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
>>>> window?
>>>>

>>>> that are ignoring an inescapable fact - he saw SOMEBODY shooting from the

>>>> 6th floor sniper's nest.
>>>>

>>>> Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
>>>> unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
>>>> extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
>>>> to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
>>>> he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
>>>> they have only the following choices.
>>>> 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
>>>> 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
>>>>

>>>> #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.

>>>> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
>>>> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
>>>> single depository employee.
>>>
>>> There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
>>> window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
>>
>> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
>> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.
>>

>> He can confirm that there were 3 shots fired from the TSBD. Lots of
>> other witnesses confirmed that and even the acoustical evidence proved
>> it. What else you got?
>>

>>> well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
>>> was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
>>> evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
>>> who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
>>>
>>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
>>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
>>
>> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
>>

>>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
>>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
>>
>> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
>> You are ASSuMING again.
>>

>>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
>>
>> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
>> sniper's nest.
>>

>>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
>>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>>>
>>
>> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
>>

>>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
>>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
>>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th

>>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
>>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
>>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>>>
>>
>> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
>> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
>>

>>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
>>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
>>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
>>> shots from the GK.
>>>
>>>
>>

>> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
>> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
>

> "We can SEE that Brennan was
> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots. "
>

> We cannot see Brennan in the Z-film at the time of the third shot. Repeat:
> the third shot. Again: the third shot.
>

I didn't say at the time of the head shot. So you think he was looking
up at Z-313? Fine, prove it. Show me. Don't just ASSuME.

> He testified to the WC that he was not watching the window during the
> first two shots, only the third.
>
> He never testified that he saw Oswald fire the first two shots. Only the
> third.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 12:31:29 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/6/2015 11:04 AM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:31:37 P cut
> >>>>
> >>>> To me, the most important contribution to the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
> >>>> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> >>>> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> >>>> floor gunman!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A 6th floor gunman has been an accepted fact here at this forum for a
> >>> good while.
> >>
> >> You underestimate the capacity for silliness of your fellow conspiracy
> >> hobbyist. Ask Don Willis if he thinks shots were fired from the sniper`s
> >> nest. He doesn`t even accept that the guys on the fifth floor were under
> >> that window. I think he might have the building right.
> >
> > Let me correct this misperception. Williams was there. Norman & Jarman
> > were added to film & testimony after Williams was picked out as the
> > shooter. (See, for instance, the 12:37 police-radio message re a shot
> > from the second window from the end, upper right hand corner of the
> > depository--Williams' window.)
> >
>
> That does not pinpoint Williams' window and the cops always got the
> numbering of the floors wrong. You got nothing.

Little quick on the trigger, Depitty Marsh. The only open (at 12:30pm)
second window from the end, upper right hand corner of the depository, as
your facing it from Elm, is Williams' exact window. Insp Sawyer got it
right, at least--he was told by officers when he arrived at the building
that witnesses told them that the shots came from the 5th floor. That
would be Harkness and Hill, the 2nd-window cop. You got less than
nothing. Reload. Your out of bullets....

dcw

[bigdog]

Not any sillier than most JFK conspiracy theories. I'll give Rossley a par
for this one.

[mainframetech]

Thank you. Most LNs don't correct their mistakes.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> > > so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
> > >
> >
> >
> > And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
> > he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)
> >
>
> He said what is corroborated by the physical evidence. Your bullshit
> story, not so much.
>

There you go making mistakes again! Brennan said there he didn't see a
scope, so are you going to say there was a 'physical' rifle poking out the
window with NO scope on it, so it matches with Brennan? Or are you simply
admit that Brennan had it wrong? Given what little Euins could see from
the same corner as Brennan, one wonders why Brennan could see like it all
happened next to him. Euins's vision was fine. And Brennan had to see
Oswald on TV twice that night before he went down to the lineup.

Many people saw a gun at that window. Brennan wasn't needed for that.
And Brennan didn't ID Oswald. He was shown Oswald and made the obvious
choice. The guy in the dirty T-shirt with the black eye, next to the guys
in suits and clean clothes. Of course Brennan at one point couldn't ID
anyone, saying later that he was scared that communists would kill him in
his sleep for identifying Oswald. He lied once, and made mistakes on
other things. He was not reliable and his testimony causes doubts.

We 've had that discussion, why are you pretending that you just now
heard it? Just for a chance to be wrong again? Actually they did use a
"stopwatch" to check how long it took for Baker to go from the street to
the second floor where he saw Oswald through the lunchroom door. It took
90 seconds. You need some more schooling!

> >
> > > > > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > > > > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > > > > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > > > > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > > > > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > > > > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> > > > Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.
> > >
> > > What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
> > > not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, wrong! I never said that the person firing out the window wasn't
> > firing at JFK or trying to kill him, I said they didn't care that much if
> > they hit him or not because there were other shooters that were supposed
> > to do the job, and they did. Firing the MC rifle out the window was
> > necessary for the forensics. It had to be shown that the MC rifle
> > (associated with Oswald) did the shooting.
> >
>
> The MC rifle did do the shooting and there is not a scrap of physical
> evidence of shots from any other location.
>

Wrong again! Your schooling follows: There were bullets striking all
over Dealey Plaza that day! There was a bullet strike on the right side
of Elm st. at the cub where Stavis Ellis saw it hit. There was a strike
on Connally, and 2 others on JFK, Plus the one on the chrome overhead of
the limo. And don't forget the through-and-through bullet hole in the
limo windshield. Then there wa the one across the plaza next to James
Tague which caused a concrete chip to hit him on the cheek and cut him.
The new have the 2 gouges in the center grass of the plaza that were seen
by Wayne and Edna Hartman. When they asked a cop what the gouges were, he
said they were caused by bullets. The gouge lines pointed at the GK.

You've tried to argue some of the individual bullet strikes, but got
nowhere when you tried to make many 'single bullet' theories for multiple
bullets...:)

> >
> >
> > > > But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> > > > particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
> > > > rifle out that window. Another shooter in another location would do the
> > > > real shooting to kill.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So their plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing from two different
> > > locations?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling begins: As noted before the
> > shooting out the window was for forensics. They had to be able to show
> > that the MC rifle (associated with Oswald) fired out the window, but the
> > shooter that was forward of the limo was the one that got off the kill
> > shot, it appears from the evidence from the autopsy and elsewhere. It was
> > expected that folks would not be able to tell where the shots came from,
> > and if they were muffled by silencers, only the 3 shots from the MC rifle
> > would he heard. It turns out the plan worked very well.
> >
>
> Well since you are inventing the GK shooter, I guess you get to give him
> any kind of weapon you want. Of course you do realize that by arguing for
> a silencer being used on the GK, you are throwing under the bus all the
> witnesses who thought they heard shots from the GK as well as the
> accoustical evidence which said shots came from there. That of course is
> the most sensible thing you've done here.
>

WRONG again! Your schooling follows: There was NO invention of a
shooter at the GK. Since there was proof at the autopsy of a bullet that
hit JFK from in front. If there were silencers used, the folks in front
of the fence would hear the sound from the gun. Silencers aren't perfect.
They reduce the noise. In an area like the plaza, there were enough solid
walls to echo shots around from many directions.

> > Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> > 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> > put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> > the plaza!
> >
> > Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> > from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
> >
>
> Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> place.
>

All over the place includes many of the strikes I listed above. Use
your head for something other than a hammer.

The third shot was seen by others looking up. No one has said that
Brennan didn't see SOMEONE wit ha rifle. But there's a question as to
WHAT rifle he saw, and WHO he saw there. His 'ID' was faulty and he
needed 'help' to say what he did.

And it was not special corroboration to see a rifle in the window, like
many did.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > > > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > > > fire.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And saw who did it.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nope, that's total bull. He couldn't see who it was. Amos Euins

> > standing right next to him with good eyes couldn't even tell whether the

> > person was black or white. Naah, Brennan didn't see anymore than the kid.
> >
>
> Just a lucky guess that the guy he identified owned the rifle that was
> fired the shells found at the window where he saw the shooter.
>

He didn't ID anyone from his view at the corner. He identified Oswald
later, and had to do a lineup that was phony to do it. They had grabbed
Oswald and made the lineup so that Oswald stood out like s sore thumb!
Brennan didn't ID anyone, just followed instructions and made the obvious
choice.

> >
> >
> >
> > > > > In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> > > > > they have only the following choices.
> > > > > 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> > > > > 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
> > > > >
> > > > > #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> > > > > Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> > > > > in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> > > > > single depository employee.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
> > > > for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
> > > > that day, and then fired it out the window too.
> > >
> > > Yet you not only can't tell us who that was, you can't even tell us who
> > > that could have been.
> > >
>
> > If the investigation were done better, we might know who it was, or if
> > they would not have let Oswald be killed in their custody, we might know
> > everything.
> >
> Oh, we're using the-dog-ate-my-evidence excuse today.
>

Nope, WRONG again! The sentence stands and needs no wisecracks to be
truthful.

> We do know who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. You just refuse to
> admit it.
>

Sounds lie YOU think you know who you would like to have fire the
shots! But the evidence says no.

> >
> >
> > > > Remember, the intent of
> > > > much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> > > > blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> > > > problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Which explains why they fired from two different locations.
> > >
> >
> >
> > At least 2. They had to be sure that the murder worked. If JFK had
> > been left alive, there would have been heads rolling. And all the
> > political income they expected from the coming Vietnam effort would have
> > them all rolling in dough.
> >
>
> We're back to accusing "they".
>

As usual, a wisecrack and run like hell to get away from the
conversation because you can't think of an intelligent comment.

> >
> >
> > > > If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
> > > > them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone. He
> > > > bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
> > > > received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
> > > > revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
> > > > a rough, tough rebel ready for action. As soon as he had the photos, he
> > > > rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.
> > >
> > > When you go here, this is where I zone out.

Yep. Poor fellow. Can't stay awake these days, and can't follow the
conversation either.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 1:01:54 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:06:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> > TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
>
> Yet, you agree that Brennan DID make a quick identification of a shooter,
> firing a rifle that had a scope, from the southeast window on the 6th
> floor of the depository - right?
>

Nope. Brennan's testimony is that he did not see a scope, until the
lawyer got him to say he wasn't sure. Check the testimony.

> So, whichever way you think he was looking - he DID make this
> identification.
>

Not really. Not when the person right next to him couldn't see who was
in the window. And that was Amos Euins, a teen with good vision, who saw
only that the person had a bald spot (which Oswald didn't have). I
suggest to you that (as has happened before) the cops 'helped' Brennan a
bit with his description.

> Oh - by the way - there WAS a sniper's nest located at the southeast
> corner of the depository and, low and behold, a rifle with a scope was
> found on that floor.
>

Everyone is aware that shots were fired from the 6th floor window.

> If Brennan was just making this up you have to give him credit for 1)
> quick thinking and 2) being very lucky.
>
> Do you think this latter statement is more likely true *or* do you think
> that Howard Brennan really DID see a shooter firing a rifle with a scope
> from the southeast corner?
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

He saw a shooter in the 6th floor window, since there are corroborating
witnesses for that. But he didn't see a scope. Check the testimony.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure what your rant means. He could be talking about an additional
shot. The acoustic eviedence shows a rifle shot from the grassy knoll.

>> Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
>> 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
>> put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
>> the plaza!
>>
>> Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
>> from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
>>
>
> Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> place.
>

And you have Oswald missing everything on this planet with one shot.
You are a hypocrite.

No.
No one did.

> There are no holes in Brennan's account. He pointed to the location where
> the shells were found. He IDed the guy who owned the rifle that had fired

No, he didn't. The report that the shells were found on the 5th floor
was in error.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2015 1:01 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 8:06:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
>> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
>
> Yet, you agree that Brennan DID make a quick identification of a shooter,
> firing a rifle that had a scope, from the southeast window on the 6th
> floor of the depository - right?
>

No. Don't presume to tell me what I agree to. I don't even agree that
you are a real human being.

> So, whichever way you think he was looking - he DID make this
> identification.
>

No. He saw something, somewhere. AFTER the shooting.

> Oh - by the way - there WAS a sniper's nest located at the southeast
> corner of the depository and, low and behold, a rifle with a scope was
> found on that floor.
>

Not in the sniper's nest.

> If Brennan was just making this up you have to give him credit for 1)
> quick thinking and 2) being very lucky.
>

No, because 3 shots really were fired from that window. The acoustical
evidence proves that.

> Do you think this latter statement is more likely true *or* do you think
> that Howard Brennan really DID see a shooter firing a rifle with a scope
> from the southeast corner?
>

Brennan saw something and then elaborated.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[bigdog]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 9:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> >>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> >>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
> >>
> >> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
> >>
> >
> > No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
> > sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper
>
> Yes a 2 foot bag. Not long enough to hold the disassembled Carcano.
>

Really? Who measured it?

> > bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
> > denying again.
> >
>
> Show me the crime scene photo of the bag in place.
> We have the photos of Wade standing in that area. So why aren't his shoe
> prints on the bag?
>

Got any intelligent questions?

> >>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> >>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
> >>
> >> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
> >> You are ASSuMING again.
> >>
> >
> > What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
> > sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
> > believe.
>
> So you can't prove your claims. No surprise there.
>

It isn't necessary to prove every last detail. There is ample proof that
Oswald was the assassin and the things that can't be proved positively fit
perfectly with that conclusion. Or we could use the conspiracy hobbyist
tactic of looking at every piece of evidence in isolation and dreaming up
a bizarre explanation for it with no concern whether or not that
explanation fits the body of evidence.

> >
> >>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
> >>
> >> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
> >> sniper's nest.
> >>
> >
> > We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
> > out to be bogus anyway.
> >
>
> You ASSuMEd that.
>
> >>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> >>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
> >>>
> >>
> >> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
> >>
> >
> > Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.
> >
>
> Only when you want to frame him.
>

Every action he took on 11/22/63 indicated he was guilty as hell.

> >>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> >>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> >>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
>
> You are making up a false narrative. Brennan did not talk to Baker, who
> is the cop who confronted Oswald.
>

You do love your strawmen. No one said Brennan spoke to Baker.

> Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
> misrepresent historical facts to frame people.
>

You intentionally misrepresent what people have written to try to make
yourself look smarter than they are. It's not working.

> >>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> >>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> >>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
> >> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
> >>
> >
> > There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
> > acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
> > lawyer.
> >
>
> Spence threw the case for money.
>

You just love making up shit to explain away inconvenient facts.

> >
> >>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> >>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> >>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> >>> shots from the GK.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> >> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
> >
> > You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
> > working.
> >
> >
>
> Again, I have no interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
> I just don't like it when Nazis frame people.

There was no need to frame Oswald. He was guilty as hell.

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 4:21:34 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 9:23 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7 cuto the case is NOT Howard Brennan's
> >> description of the shooter - it's his extemporaneous and accurate
> >> observation of the existence of a 6th floor gunman. There HAD to be a 6th
> >> floor gunman!
> >>
> >> The conspiracy crowd also makes a big deal out of Brennan's failure
> >> (unwillingness?) to make a positive identification of Oswald in the
> >> line-up. They reject the notion that he had concerns about his well-being.
> >> I guess he was lying AGAIN. Yet, Brennan quickly and accurately pointed
> >> out the three depository employees who were on the 5th floor, directly
> >> beneath the 6th floor sniper's nest; James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams and
> >> Harold Norman. So much for white guys thinking that all black guys look
> >> the same - huh?
> >
> > Brennan never said that he saw *three* men on the 5th floor. He said that
> > he saw only *two*--Norman and Jarman. However, at the hearings, when the
>
> Did he name them? Can you quote that testimony?

Brennan: And I immediately identified these two boys to the officers &
Mr. Sorrels as being on the fifth floor"--v3p146

Brennan does not name them himself, but Norman & Jarman volunteer that
info during their own respective testimonies. However, the incident
itself is unconfirmed by either Sorrels or the "officers", none of whom
ever mentioned it.

dcw

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 4:24:08 PM UTC-7,cut

> > >
> >
> > Or in a world where testimony is actually looked at...
>
> If you looked at the testimony you`d know which window they indicated.

Yes, Euins indicated a window in which there was a "colored man" with a
rifle. Brennan, COuch, Fischer, Edwards, & Jackson all indicated
wide-open windows. They were in agreement....

>
> > > > b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
> > > > The man could not have done this at a half-open window.
> > >
> > > Which could explain where Brennan got the idea the window was open more
> > > than it was during the shooting. If Oswald had the window opened halfway
> > > before the motorcade Brennan might have gotten the impression of a more
> > > open window then.
> > >
> >
> > Don't understand this reasoning.... And he specifically said that the
> > window was wide open *at the time of the shooting*....
>
> He may have assumed this but the impression may have been formed by his
> earlier observations.
>

Interesting. So, earlier, he saw a suspect in a wide open window, & later
suspect in a half-open window. WHo was this other suspect, Bud?

"Slender" does not indicate weight, unless you have a height estimation to
go with it, & no one from the ground level could have that....

> > > >the man was several
> > > > floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> > > > would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> > > > Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> > > > depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> > > >
> > > > > There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> > > > > could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> > > > > excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> > > > > that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> > > > > scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> > > > > window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> > > > > lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> > > > > window?
> > > >
> > > > Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
> > >
> > > Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.
> > >
> >
> > In his statements, he varied as to how much of the shooter he could see.
>
> Yah, witnesses will do that.
>
> > Lane's book recounted how the Euins family was intimidated....
>
> Maybe they has something to hide.
>

Huh??

> > > > Jackson also said that the
> > > > suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
> > > > Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
> > > >
> > > > "That EXACT window"?--hardly....
> > >
> > > So the window was down a little bit from their impressions, so what?
> > >
> > Strange though isn't it that there should be such unanimity on this point?
>
> It`s strange that you find such a trivial detail significant.

Brennan insists that he saw the rifle in a wide-open window. Trivial??
He pointedly rejects the "nest" window as open like the window in which he
saw the rifle.

> > And don't forget that Fischer added that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window had not been wide open....
>
> Again, it may have been opened further at that time.

Good try, Bud. But Jackson & Couch saw the rifle during or after the
shooting, and Jackson said it was wide open *then*, & Couch thought it
might have been, too....

>
> > > > dcw
> >
> > Shining through all your comments, above, are the words "Help me!"
> > dcw
>
> I`m not the one that needs help.

Help you? Someone will, I'm sure....
dcw

[donald willis]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 6:53:36 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/5/2015 9:02 PM, donald willis wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:06:16 PM UTC-7, A cutMalcolm Wallace kooks.
> >>>> Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> >>>> in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> >>>> single depository employee.
> >>>
> >>> There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
> >>> window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those
> >>
> >> Ok, so use those witnesses and not Brennan. We can SEE that Brennan was
> >> not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shots.
> >
> > I assume we can see that from the Z-film? This would confirm a suspicion
> > of mine. Brennan saw a man *before* the shooting acting very
>
> Not just the Zapruder film. Also the Dorman film. In the Zapruder film
> we can see Brennan looking up Elm Street to see the limo.
>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/z-183_Reg.gif
>
> > conspicuously, drawing attention to himself & the area. He, Brennan,
> > looks away as the limo passes & the shots are fired. He looks back and
> > sees a man lingering in a window pretty near where he saw the other man.
>
>
> Show that to me. Don't just ASSuMe it.
>
> > He says the man is looking towards Elm near the limo. That was, I posit,
> > Bonnie Ray Williams. Check the Dillard & Powell photos. Williams is
> > looking in the direction of the underpass, and seems to be trying not to
>
> WHEN? Long after the shooting is over?

If you call 10-15 seconds "long after". Check the Dillard and Powell
pictures.

>
> > be seen. Not because he was the shooter, but because he doesn't want to
> > be shot. Interviewed by reporters that day, he said the shooter was
> > slender and nice-looking. Well, the first half of that fits Oswald; both
> > halves fit Williams. Brennan looked away, looked back, & picked out
> > Williams. Like Euins, he thought a "colored man" was the shooter....
> >
>
> No, Brennan never said anything about Williams. You are just making up
> crap.
>

Fast-draw Marsh. There's at least ambiguity here. At the hearings,
Williams was asked if a man named Brennan saw him come out the front door
of the depository, and if Brennan said that he was the man he had seen on
the fifth floor. Williams said, No. But if it wasn't Brennan, it was
someone who seemed to know that Williams had indeed been on the 5th floor.
Just another matter swept under the Commission carpet....

> > dcw
> >

[Bud]

On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:50:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:03:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > > > > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> > > > shells were found on the floor
> > >
> > > Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
> > > picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!
> > >
> >
> > So you think Fritz planted the shells there just to support Brennan's
> > identification of the 6th floor window as the source of the shots.
>
> I kinda doubt Fritz had heard of Brennan before 1:15pm or so that day.
> And Brennan went out of his way to REJECT the appearance of the "nest"
> window and to ID a wide-open window.
>
> You do
> > know that other people pointed to that same window.
>
> Actually, no one designated that window.

"..in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows
from the top I saw a man in this window."

Brennan`s 11-22 affidavit.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:38:40 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> > > > so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
> > > he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)
> > >
> >
> > He said what is corroborated by the physical evidence. Your bullshit
> > story, not so much.
> >
>
>
> There you go making mistakes again! Brennan said there he didn't see a
> scope, so are you going to say there was a 'physical' rifle poking out the
> window with NO scope on it, so it matches with Brennan?

Brennan never took the position that the rifle he saw didn`t have a scope, only that he didn`t observe one.

> Or are you simply
> admit that Brennan had it wrong? Given what little Euins could see from
> the same corner as Brennan, one wonders why Brennan could see like it all
> happened next to him. Euins's vision was fine. And Brennan had to see
> Oswald on TV twice that night before he went down to the lineup.

And once up in the window shooting.

Good of you to admit that Brennan was a corroborated witness. A lot of the information he provided was.

> Brennan wasn't needed for that.
> And Brennan didn't ID Oswald.

Not at the line-up, but he did identify Oswald as the shooter.

> He was shown Oswald and made the obvious
> choice.

The person he saw shooting was the obvious choice. He opted not to make an identification at the line-up for the reasons he gave.

> The guy in the dirty T-shirt with the black eye, next to the guys
> in suits and clean clothes. Of course Brennan at one point couldn't ID
> anyone, saying later that he was scared that communists would kill him in
> his sleep for identifying Oswald. He lied once, and made mistakes on
> other things. He was not reliable and his testimony causes doubts.

Among conspiracy hobbyists who are desperate to believe Oswald was a patsy.

That can only provide an estimate, not an actual time. Is twice as long somehow ruled out?

Blanks, blanks and more blanks.

Empty claim, the autopsy report says no such thing.

> If there were silencers used, the folks in front
> of the fence would hear the sound from the gun. Silencers aren't perfect.
> They reduce the noise. In an area like the plaza, there were enough solid
> walls to echo shots around from many directions.
>
>
> > > Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> > > 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> > > put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> > > the plaza!
> > >
> > > Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> > > from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
> > >
> >
> > Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> > close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> > place.
> >
>
>
> All over the place includes many of the strikes I listed above. Use
> your head for something other than a hammer.

That would make your ideas the nails.

It is corroboration when many report the same thing.

There is no reason to believe that it is the lack of information that is preventing you from figuring out who killed Kennedy.

> > We do know who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. You just refuse to
> > admit it.
> >
>
>
> Sounds lie YOU think you know who you would like to have fire the
> shots! But the evidence says no.

You`re not listening.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Remember, the intent of
> > > > > much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> > > > > blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> > > > > problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which explains why they fired from two different locations.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > At least 2. They had to be sure that the murder worked. If JFK had
> > > been left alive, there would have been heads rolling. And all the
> > > political income they expected from the coming Vietnam effort would have
> > > them all rolling in dough.
> > >
> >
> > We're back to accusing "they".
> >
>
>
> As usual, a wisecrack and run like hell to get away from the
> conversation because you can't think of an intelligent comment.

You expect a serious answer to some concocted imaginary scenario you dreamed up?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If you go back in time, you find that decisions and actions (or lack of
> > > > > them) show that Oswald did not buy the MC rifle to shoot anyone. He
> > > > > bought it to impress some folks he wanted to get in with. When he
> > > > > received it, he immediately had his photo taken with it and with his
> > > > > revolver and some communist literature. The idea was to show that he was
> > > > > a rough, tough rebel ready for action. As soon as he had the photos, he
> > > > > rolled the rifle up in a blanket and threw it into a damp garage.
> > > >
> > > > When you go here, this is where I zone out.
>
> Yep. Poor fellow. Can't stay awake these days, and can't follow the
> conversation either.

It doesn`t go anywhere. An endless reciting of blanks.

> Chris

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 10:39:23 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> Everyone is aware that shots were fired from the 6th floor window.

I disagree with that. On countless occasions and in many conspiracy books,
an argument is made by the conspiracy theorists that the sniper's nest is
a contrived.

Surely, you've heard/read the common factoid about how it appears boxes
have been moved when comparing photos of the 6th floor sniper's nest taken
shortly after the assassination from street level and compared to the
configuration of the boxes taken from within the building, from the 6th
floor.

There are many conspiracy theorists who argue that there was no gunman at
the southeastern window on the 6th floor, where the sniper's nest was
discovered.

In my opinion, Howard Brennan's corroborated observation destroys any
notion that there was no 6th floor gunman.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:38:40 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> > > > so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
> > > he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)
> > >
> >
> > He said what is corroborated by the physical evidence. Your bullshit
> > story, not so much.
> >
>
>
> There you go making mistakes again! Brennan said there he didn't see a
> scope, so are you going to say there was a 'physical' rifle poking out the
> window with NO scope on it, so it matches with Brennan? Or are you simply
> admit that Brennan had it wrong?

Of course he got that wrong. You've admitted the Carcano was fired out the
window. The Carcano had a scope on it so obviously Brennan failed to
observe the scope on the rifle.

> Given what little Euins could see from
> the same corner as Brennan, one wonders why Brennan could see like it all
> happened next to him. Euins's vision was fine. And Brennan had to see
> Oswald on TV twice that night before he went down to the lineup.
>

He didn't have to. He happened to.

Of course he wasn't. It was just one more piece of evidence that put
together indates Oswald was shooter.

>> And Brennan didn't ID Oswald. He was shown Oswald and made the obvious
> choice. The guy in the dirty T-shirt with the black eye, next to the guys
> in suits and clean clothes.

Sounds like a conspiracy hobbyist factoid.

> Of course Brennan at one point couldn't ID
> anyone, saying later that he was scared that communists would kill him in
> his sleep for identifying Oswald. He lied once, and made mistakes on
> other things. He was not reliable and his testimony causes doubts.
>

So you are OK with a nurse supposedly sitting on her story for 50 years
because she said she was afraid, but you won't accept Brennan could be
afraid in the immediate aftermath of the assassination when nobody could
be certain who else might have been involved.

Exactly. They timed the RECREATION which doesn't establish how long it
actually took Baker to reach the 2nd floor. They did the recreation twice
and got a different time frame on the second one which indicates a
recreation could only estimate how long Baker took on 11/22/63. What the
recreations did show was that during the recreations, Baker took slightly
longer to reach the second floor than it took the agent who recreated
Oswald's movements from the sniper's nest to the second floor. It
logically follows that you have no basis for claiming Oswald could not
have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom before Baker did. This is simply
another of those CT myths that have been repeated so many times they are
accepted dogma.

>
>
> > >
> > > > > > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > > > > > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > > > > > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > > > > > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > > > > > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > > > > > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> > > > > Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.
> > > >
> > > > What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
> > > > not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, wrong! I never said that the person firing out the window wasn't
> > > firing at JFK or trying to kill him, I said they didn't care that much if
> > > they hit him or not because there were other shooters that were supposed
> > > to do the job, and they did. Firing the MC rifle out the window was
> > > necessary for the forensics. It had to be shown that the MC rifle
> > > (associated with Oswald) did the shooting.
> > >
> >
> > The MC rifle did do the shooting and there is not a scrap of physical
> > evidence of shots from any other location.
> >
>
> Wrong again! Your schooling follows: There were bullets striking all
> over Dealey Plaza that day! There was a bullet strike on the right side
> of Elm st. at the cub where Stavis Ellis saw it hit.

Where's the physical evidence for that one?

> There was a strike
> on Connally, and 2 others on JFK, Plus the one on the chrome overhead of
> the limo.

Two bullets did all of that.

> And don't forget the through-and-through bullet hole in the
> limo windshield.

There was no through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. CT
mythology. The windshield was cracked by a fragment strike from the
inside.

> Then there wa the one across the plaza next to James
> Tague which caused a concrete chip to hit him on the cheek and cut him.

It is probably that was caused by a ricochet of the first shot but far
from certain. Add that shot to the two which injured JFK and JBC we are
now up to three.

> The new have the 2 gouges in the center grass of the plaza that were seen
> by Wayne and Edna Hartman. When they asked a cop what the gouges were, he
> said they were caused by bullets. The gouge lines pointed at the GK.
>

Where's the physical evidence for that one?

> You've tried to argue some of the individual bullet strikes, but got
> nowhere when you tried to make many 'single bullet' theories for multiple
> bullets...:)
>

I've tried to get you to provide physical evidence for those strikes, not
guess by witnesses. You have failed once again.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > But they weren't trying to hit JFK
> > > > > particularly, it was simply important for forensic purposes to fire the MC
> > > > > rifle out that window. Another shooter in another location would do the
> > > > > real shooting to kill.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So their plan was to frame a lone gunman by firing from two different
> > > > locations?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, WRONG again! Your schooling begins: As noted before the
> > > shooting out the window was for forensics. They had to be able to show
> > > that the MC rifle (associated with Oswald) fired out the window, but the
> > > shooter that was forward of the limo was the one that got off the kill
> > > shot, it appears from the evidence from the autopsy and elsewhere. It was
> > > expected that folks would not be able to tell where the shots came from,
> > > and if they were muffled by silencers, only the 3 shots from the MC rifle
> > > would he heard. It turns out the plan worked very well.
> > >
> >
> > Well since you are inventing the GK shooter, I guess you get to give him
> > any kind of weapon you want. Of course you do realize that by arguing for
> > a silencer being used on the GK, you are throwing under the bus all the
> > witnesses who thought they heard shots from the GK as well as the
> > accoustical evidence which said shots came from there. That of course is
> > the most sensible thing you've done here.
> >
>
>
> WRONG again! Your schooling follows: There was NO invention of a
> shooter at the GK. Since there was proof at the autopsy of a bullet that
> hit JFK from in front.

Once again you demonstrate you have no idea what the difference is between
a hypothesis and proof.

> If there were silencers used, the folks in front
> of the fence would hear the sound from the gun. Silencers aren't perfect.

OH. These were selective silencers. The kind that only keeps some people
from hearing shots while others are still able to hear them. Thank you for
clearing that up.

> They reduce the noise. In an area like the plaza, there were enough solid
> walls to echo shots around from many directions.
>

So your conspirators couldn't afford good riflemen, good weapons, good
ammo, or good silencers. Everything was done on a budget and they cut
corners whereever they could. Yet they managed to pull off the crime of
the millenium and have gotten away with it for over 50 years. Good thing
for us we have you in hot pursuit. They'll never get a day's peace as long
as we have you on the case.

>
> > > Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> > > 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> > > put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> > > the plaza!
> > >
> > > Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> > > from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
> > >
> >
> > Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> > close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> > place.
> >
>
>
> All over the place includes many of the strikes I listed above. Use
> your head for something other than a hammer.
>

Yes, you listed a hole bunch of shots that ended up hitting no where near
the limo. Even back then it was hard to find good help.

Most of the witnesses only located the rifleman after the third shot was
fired.

> No one has said that
> Brennan didn't see SOMEONE wit ha rifle. But there's a question as to
> WHAT rifle he saw, and WHO he saw there. His 'ID' was faulty and he
> needed 'help' to say what he did.
>

You've said "they" fired the Carcano out the window. Are you saying they
fired two rifles out that window or are you revising your bullshit story
again. You could be in line for the Ed Hoffman Award.

> And it was not special corroboration to see a rifle in the window, like
> many did.
>

Special corroboration? What the hell is that?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > > > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > > > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > > > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > > > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > > > > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > > > > fire.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And saw who did it.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Nope, that's total bull. He couldn't see who it was. Amos Euins
> > > standing right next to him with good eyes couldn't even tell whether the
> > > person was black or white. Naah, Brennan didn't see anymore than the kid.
> > >
> >
> > Just a lucky guess that the guy he identified owned the rifle that was
> > fired the shells found at the window where he saw the shooter.
> >
>
>
> He didn't ID anyone from his view at the corner. He identified Oswald
> later, and had to do a lineup that was phony to do it. They had grabbed
> Oswald and made the lineup so that Oswald stood out like s sore thumb!
> Brennan didn't ID anyone, just followed instructions and made the obvious
> choice.
>

Oh, so your latest version has them telling Brennan to ID Oswald. I hadn't
seen that in your previous versions.

So you consider it a wisecrack to point out you have no clue who shot JFK.

[Anthony Marsh]

You are just ASSuMing that means it's Williams. He didn't name Williams.
You are interpolating the testimony to make it fit your pet theory. Do you
REALLY think that Williams was the shooter from the 5th floor? Or are you
just trying to annoy the WC defenders? No answer?

> dcw
>

[bigdog]

Oh, so you now have two gunmen up on the GK, one with a silencer and one
without.

> >> Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> >> 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> >> put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> >> the plaza!
> >>
> >> Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> >> from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
> >>
> >
> > Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> > close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> > place.
> >
>
> And you have Oswald missing everything on this planet with one shot.
> You are a hypocrite.
>

No, I have him missing JFK with his first shot. I'm fairly certain it hit
something on the planet.

WTF???

[Anthony Marsh]

How about if he planted a bush in the sniper's nest?
Remember that the little old lady said the shots came from the bushes.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2015 9:50 PM, donald willis wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:03:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
>>>>> windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
>>>> shells were found on the floor
>>>
>>> Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
>>> picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!
>>>
>>
>> So you think Fritz planted the shells there just to support Brennan's
>> identification of the 6th floor window as the source of the shots.
>
> I kinda doubt Fritz had heard of Brennan before 1:15pm or so that day.
> And Brennan went out of his way to REJECT the appearance of the "nest"
> window and to ID a wide-open window.
>

It's called conflating.

> You do
>> know that other people pointed to that same window.
>
> Actually, no one designated that window. Unless you count Euins'
> testimony and discount his earlier ID of a "colored man" as the shooter.
> Cherry pick all you want....
>

Again, Euins saw a black man on the fifth floor and assumed he was the
shooter.

> You do know that the
>> shells were found at that window before Fritz even arrived.
>>
>>> where the rifle was found
>>>
>>> ATF guy sez it was found on a floor lower than the 6th. And detectives
>>> Johnson & Montgomery were guarding the "nest" on the 6th floor from about
>>> 1:10 to 2:30 and heard not a sound about a rifle's being found on that
>>> floor.
>>
>> You're stretching. The rifle was found on the other side of the floor.
>
> It was a big event. There was shouting. Searchers heard Boone yelling
> all around the floor. And it was otherwise so quiet up there that
> Montgomery & Johnson could hear a police radio out front reporting
> Tippit's murder. And they couldn't hear the noisy rifle find?

Why does a rifle find have to be noisy?

>
>
> And
>> why do you suppose they were guarding the nest if that isn't where the
>> shells were found?
>
> The "nest" was found there, not the shells. They mention no shells.
> They just say the scene of the shooting....
>
> You guys never put things together. You take one bit of
>> information and dream something up from it without ever considering how it
>> fits with the entire body of evidence.
>>
>>> Of course, this was only from their same-weekend statements, & by
>>> the time of their WC testimony, they had come around & belatedly heard the
>>> discovery of the rifle!
>>>
>>
>> Quote them saying that no rifle was found on the 6th floor in their same
>> weekend statement or any other statement.
>
> Why would they report something that didn't happen, and they had not
> knowledge of?? C'mon, big d....
>

Cops report rumors all the time.

Some window. What they ASSuMEd was the shooter's window. Just as Brennan
ASSuMEd that the shooter was standing up. Standing up while he was
shooting? I'd like to see ANYBODY do that from the sniper's nest. Like
Penn and Teller shooting THROUGH a window without breaking the glass.

> was open! And you assume that that "body of evidence" was untampered
> with, although 3 witnesses said Fritz picked up the hulls, and Fritz later
> all-but-denied that he picked them up--he couldn't quite go all the way
> into an outright lie....
>

Fritz the Klutz realize his rookie mistake and tried to cover it up.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/6/2015 7:24 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:00:15 AM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:29:46 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:

>>>> On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 7:05:45 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:
>>>>> Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
>>>>> Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
>>>>>

>>>>> Unless one is willing to assert that construction worker Howard Brennan
>>>>> was part of the conspiracy to frame Oswald (which almost nobody believes
>>>>> but the fringe kooks in this debate), there is no denying that he saw
>>>>> SOMEBODY shooting from the 6th floor sniper's nest. There DEFINITELY was a
>>>>> 6th floor gunman!
>>>>

>>>> a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
>>>> windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
>>>

>>> That would be meaningful, in a world where the location of the window
>>> would be determined by it`s openness.

>>>
>>
>> Or in a world where testimony is actually looked at...
>
> If you looked at the testimony you`d know which window they indicated.
>

>>>> b) He also said that the shooter at one point lay on the window sill.
>>>> The man could not have done this at a half-open window.
>>>

>>> Which could explain where Brennan got the idea the window was open more
>>> than it was during the shooting. If Oswald had the window opened halfway
>>> before the motorcade Brennan might have gotten the impression of a more
>>> open window then.
>>>
>>
>> Don't understand this reasoning.... And he specifically said that the
>> window was wide open *at the time of the shooting*....
>
> He may have assumed this but the impression may have been formed by his
> earlier observations.
>

>> (Although Marsh
>> says Brennan was NOT looking at the window at that time....)
>
> I challenged Marsh to support this before and he couldn`t, yet he still
> repeats this meaningless claim.
>

I did, but you refused to look at the Zapruder frame 202.

>
>>>> And he *would*
>>>> not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
>>>> to that area of the depository
>>>

>>> Your figuring has no impact on Oswald`s actions.
>>>
>>
>> Yours does?
>
> No figuring required, he did what he did. If Brennan says he sat on the
> windowsill I see no reason to believe he made it up. If Whaley says he

It's not Brennan who is siting on the windowsill. It would be the shooter.
That is physically impossible with the window only open 13 inches. So you
don't care if something is physically impossible, you still WANT to
believe it. Just as you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

> offered his cab to some woman then I suppose he did. If he said he was a
> patsy, then he did. None of these things are incompatible with him killing
> Kennedy.

In fact the Nazis claim that when Oswald said he was a patsy he was
admitting that he was part of the conspiracy.

>
>> Glad he could accommodate your "figuring" 50 years after the
>> fact!
>>

>>>>> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
>>>>> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
>>>>> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
>>>>> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
>>>>> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
>>>> description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
>>>> clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
>>>> seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would

>>>> not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--
>>>
>>> Proven wrong by the fact that this was done.
>>
>> Sawyer & co. needed someone, some witness, to validate his phony suspect
>> description, & Brennan stepped up, poor guy...
>
> Yes, that is the choice, either everybody was out to get Oswald or he
> was just guilty.

Fallacy of False Alternatives.

>
>
>>> And it isn`t that difficult, you can give a guess of the weight of the
>>> two black guys under the window with some degree of accuracy.
>>
>> No, you can't. Also pretend you can guess Studebaker's height & weight in
>> the window in the hour after the shooting.... With Williams, yes, you can
>> say he was slender. Norman, too, perhaps....
>
> So you admit it`s possible to estimate someone`s weight in this manner.
>

What are you, a Carnie?

>>>> the man was several
>>>> floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
>>>> would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
>>>> Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
>>>> depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
>>>>

>>>>> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
>>>>> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
>>>>> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
>>>>> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
>>>>> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
>>>>> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
>>>>> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
>>>>> window?
>>>>
>>>> Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
>>>

>>> Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.
>>>
>>
>> In his statements, he varied as to how much of the shooter he could see.
>
> Yah, witnesses will do that.
>
>> Lane's book recounted how the Euins family was intimidated....
>
> Maybe they has something to hide.
>

Maybe the cops knew by then that the shooter was a white man.

>
>>>> Jackson also said that the
>>>> suspect was at a wide open window. Fellow witnesses Couch, Edwards, &
>>>> Fischer agreed--the man was at a wide open window.
>>>>

>>>> "That EXACT window"?--hardly....
>>>
>>> So the window was down a little bit from their impressions, so what?
>>>
>> Strange though isn't it that there should be such unanimity on this point?
>
> It`s strange that you find such a trivial detail significant.
>

>> And don't forget that Fischer added that he could not have seen as much of the man if the window had not been wide open....
>
> Again, it may have been opened further at that time.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/7/2015 2:26 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/5/2015 9:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>>>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
>>>>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
>>>>
>>>> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
>>> sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper
>>
>> Yes a 2 foot bag. Not long enough to hold the disassembled Carcano.
>>
>
> Really? Who measured it?
>

The FBI based on Frazier's description.

>>> bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
>>> denying again.
>>>
>>
>> Show me the crime scene photo of the bag in place.
>> We have the photos of Wade standing in that area. So why aren't his shoe
>> prints on the bag?
>>
>
> Got any intelligent questions?
>

Another dodge.

>>>>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
>>>>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
>>>>
>>>> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
>>>> You are ASSuMING again.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
>>> sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
>>> believe.
>>
>> So you can't prove your claims. No surprise there.
>>
>
> It isn't necessary to prove every last detail. There is ample proof that
> Oswald was the assassin and the things that can't be proved positively fit
> perfectly with that conclusion. Or we could use the conspiracy hobbyist
> tactic of looking at every piece of evidence in isolation and dreaming up
> a bizarre explanation for it with no concern whether or not that
> explanation fits the body of evidence.
>

That's right so why do you need to make up a Single Bullet Theory? Just
admit that you don't know which shot hit which man when.
If there were ample proof then the majority of the public would agree
with the WC. But they don't.

>>>
>>>>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
>>>>
>>>> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
>>>> sniper's nest.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
>>> out to be bogus anyway.
>>>
>>
>> You ASSuMEd that.
>>
>>>>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
>>>>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Only when you want to frame him.
>>
>
> Every action he took on 11/22/63 indicated he was guilty as hell.

Like waking up and going to work?
If any other person ever does something you don't say anything.
But if Oswald does the same thing you claim it proves his guilt.
Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.

>
>>>>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
>>>>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
>>>>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
>>
>> You are making up a false narrative. Brennan did not talk to Baker, who
>> is the cop who confronted Oswald.
>>
>
> You do love your strawmen. No one said Brennan spoke to Baker.
>

But you went right from Brennam talking to some unknown police officer
to a police officer entering the building and making contact with LHO.
Brennan did not immediately find Baker.

>> Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
>> misrepresent historical facts to frame people.
>>
>
> You intentionally misrepresent what people have written to try to make
> yourself look smarter than they are. It's not working.
>

You said Baker was headed for the sixth floor. That is not true. He was
headed for the roof.

>>>>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
>>>>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
>>>>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
>>>> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
>>> acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
>>> lawyer.
>>>
>>
>> Spence threw the case for money.
>>
>
> You just love making up shit to explain away inconvenient facts.
>
>>>
>>>>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
>>>>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
>>>>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
>>>>> shots from the GK.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
>>>> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
>>>
>>> You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
>>> working.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Again, I have no interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
>> I just don't like it when Nazis frame people.
>
> There was no need to frame Oswald. He was guilty as hell.
>

In case you've never been in the real world, you can frame a guilty man.
As the cops LA detectives did to OJ Simpson or the Boston detectives did
to drug dealers. Of course, you never admit anything.

[mainframetech]

As to wacky "theories" you need look no further than the WCR...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 2:26:41 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 4/5/2015 9:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > >>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> > >>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
> > >>
> > >> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
> > >>
> > >
> > > No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
> > > sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper
> >
> > Yes a 2 foot bag. Not long enough to hold the disassembled Carcano.
> >
>
> Really? Who measured it?
>
> > > bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
> > > denying again.
> > >
> >
> > Show me the crime scene photo of the bag in place.
> > We have the photos of Wade standing in that area. So why aren't his shoe
> > prints on the bag?
> >
>
> Got any intelligent questions?
>

Yes. Why isn't there a photo of the bag in situ? That suggests that the police procedures weren't being followed properly, or the 'bag' was missing. Other items such as the rifle were photographed in place, why not the 'bag'? Details have a way of making the whole case change.

> > >>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> > >>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
> > >>
> > >> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
> > >> You are ASSuMING again.
> > >>
> > >
> > > What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
> > > sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
> > > believe.
> >
> > So you can't prove your claims. No surprise there.
> >
>
> It isn't necessary to prove every last detail. There is ample proof that
> Oswald was the assassin and the things that can't be proved positively fit
> perfectly with that conclusion. Or we could use the conspiracy hobbyist
> tactic of looking at every piece of evidence in isolation and dreaming up
> a bizarre explanation for it with no concern whether or not that
> explanation fits the body of evidence.
>

Actually, you're wrong. There isn't ample proof of Oswald's guilt. It was not possible for him to go from the 6th floor window to the 2nd floor lunchroom. As well, he was a non-violent person, and had no interest in shooting anyone with the MC rifle as shown by his not buying ammunition, and by not practicing wit the rifle.

> > >
> > >>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
> > >>
> > >> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
> > >> sniper's nest.
> > >>
> > >
> > > We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
> > > out to be bogus anyway.
> > >
> >
> > You ASSuMEd that.
> >
> > >>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> > >>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Only when you want to frame him.
> >
>
> Every action he took on 11/22/63 indicated he was guilty as hell.
>

Not really. He brought in a rifle with someone watching, to sell, or trade or just show. He went about his normal day. What's guilty about that? When he realized that he was being played for a 'patsy' he got out of there. Not a foolish move under the circumstances.

> > >>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> > >>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> > >>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> >
> > You are making up a false narrative. Brennan did not talk to Baker, who
> > is the cop who confronted Oswald.
> >
>
> You do love your strawmen. No one said Brennan spoke to Baker.
>

Police didn't "make contact" with Oswald "on the way to the 6th floor". They made contact with Oswald in the lunchroom, where they saw him through the window in the door.

> > Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
> > misrepresent historical facts to frame people.
> >
>
> You intentionally misrepresent what people have written to try to make
> yourself look smarter than they are. It's not working.
>
> > >>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> > >>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> > >>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
> > >> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
> > >>
> > >
> > > There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
> > > acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
> > > lawyer.
> > >
> >
> > Spence threw the case for money.
> >
>
> You just love making up shit to explain away inconvenient facts.
>

How about the "inconvenient fact" that no one was hit or hurt by bullets from the MC rifle? That alone makes Oswald innocent of the murder of JFK.

> > >
> > >>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> > >>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> > >>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> > >>> shots from the GK.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> > >> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
> > >
> > > You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
> > > working.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Again, I have no interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
> > I just don't like it when Nazis frame people.
>
> There was no need to frame Oswald. He was guilty as hell.

Naah! WRONG again!

Chris

[claviger]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 11:33:34 AM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
> There were several corroborating witnesses to a man in the 6th floor
> window firing a rifle at the motorcade. Howard Brennen was one of those

> well placed witnesses. It might be hard to know if the man in the window
> was kneeling or standing depending on where the witness was located. The
> evidence is overwhelming there was a man firing a rifle from that window
> who was white not black and fit the description of LHO.
>

> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO

> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.

> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above

> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
>

> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th

> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>

> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> shots from the GK.

Eyewitnesses to man in the window
2 posts by 2 authors
W.E.Potts
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/potts.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0084b.htm
Edwards, Robert Edwin WC Testimony, 11/22/63 Affidavit
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/edward1.htm
Fischer, Ronald B. WC Testimony, 11/22/63 Affidavit
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fischer1.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You have to be very careful how you phrase things so that you don't
leave a false impression. Brennan saw two black men on the fifth floor.
Later Norman and Jarman told the authorities that they were watching the
motorcade from the fifth floor.

> dcw
>

[Bud]

What would that tell me about the entire shooting sequence?

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z202.jpg

The second shot has not been fired, and Brennan said he looked up after
the shot prior to the last one.

> >
> >>>> And he *would*
> >>>> not have done it unless he were trying to attract attention to himself, or
> >>>> to that area of the depository
> >>>
> >>> Your figuring has no impact on Oswald`s actions.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yours does?
> >
> > No figuring required, he did what he did. If Brennan says he sat on the
> > windowsill I see no reason to believe he made it up. If Whaley says he
>
> It's not Brennan who is siting on the windowsill. It would be the shooter.

That would be the "he".

> That is physically impossible with the window only open 13 inches.

He could have been sitting on the row of bricks when Brennan saw him,
not actually the sill.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/132TheSnipersNest.jpg

And since this observation was made earlier by Brennan the window may
have been opened fully at that time.

> So you
> don't care if something is physically impossible, you still WANT to
> believe it. Just as you believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Just as I believe you talk a lot of nonsense.

> > offered his cab to some woman then I suppose he did. If he said he was a
> > patsy, then he did. None of these things are incompatible with him killing
> > Kennedy.
>
> In fact the Nazis claim that when Oswald said he was a patsy he was
> admitting that he was part of the conspiracy.

Nazis are like that. LNers more reasonably believe Oswald was lying when
he claimed to be a patsy.

> >
> >> Glad he could accommodate your "figuring" 50 years after the
> >> fact!
> >>
> >>>>> If Brennan was lying, then he came up with this lie very quickly. He gave
> >>>>> a description of the 6th floor shooter to a police officer within a few
> >>>>> minutes of the shooting. The broadcast went out at 12:45, only 15 minutes
> >>>>> after the shooting so Brennan relayed this information well before that.
> >>>>> That's a very quick-thinking lie!
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Brennan, at best, was an unimportant ingredient in the suspect
> >>>> description. Insp Sawyer's witness could not describe the suspect's
> >>>> clothing--Brennan described it pretty thoroughly, almost as if he *had*
> >>>> seen him lying on the sill at one point. A witness on the ground would
> >>>> not try to estimate the suspect's height or weight--
> >>>
> >>> Proven wrong by the fact that this was done.
> >>
> >> Sawyer & co. needed someone, some witness, to validate his phony suspect
> >> description, & Brennan stepped up, poor guy...
> >
> > Yes, that is the choice, either everybody was out to get Oswald or he
> > was just guilty.
>
> Fallacy of False Alternatives.

Lets see Don build a case where everyone isn`t out to get Oswald.

> >
> >
> >>> And it isn`t that difficult, you can give a guess of the weight of the
> >>> two black guys under the window with some degree of accuracy.
> >>
> >> No, you can't. Also pretend you can guess Studebaker's height & weight in
> >> the window in the hour after the shooting.... With Williams, yes, you can
> >> say he was slender. Norman, too, perhaps....
> >
> > So you admit it`s possible to estimate someone`s weight in this manner.
> >
>
> What are you, a Carnie?

Anyone can guess weight.

> >>>> the man was several
> >>>> floors up, and even if he did lie down on the sill, a ground-level witness
> >>>> would not have seen all of him. Further, after relaying the description,
> >>>> Sawyer radioed that he wasn't even sure that the suspect was in the
> >>>> depository, although Brennan definitely said that he was.
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is a common criticism that Brennan's description is too general and
> >>>>> could apply to countless people. That's true. But his description also
> >>>>> excludes many people, but it does not exclude Oswald.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Here's how we know Brennan wasn't lying ... there WAS a sniper's nest at
> >>>>> that EXACT window! There WAS a rifle found on that floor. It even had a
> >>>>> scope - EXACTLY as Brennan had said. Others saw a man with a rifle at that
> >>>>> window (Amos Euins, James Worrell and Robert Jackson). If Brennan was
> >>>>> lying - what are the chances that he just HAPPENED to pick the exact
> >>>>> window?
> >>>>
> >>>> Euins said the suspect was a "colored man".
> >>>
> >>> Also said it was a white man. Denied he ever said the guy was black.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In his statements, he varied as to how much of the shooter he could see.
> >
> > Yah, witnesses will do that.
> >
> >> Lane's book recounted how the Euins family was intimidated....
> >
> > Maybe they has something to hide.
> >
>
> Maybe the cops knew by then that the shooter was a white man.

I should hope.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 5:27:42 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:50:37 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:03:57 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 6:07:26 PM UTC-7, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:30:01 PM UTC-4, donald willis wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a) Brennan testified that the shooter's window was wide open, like the
> > > > > > windows just below the so-called "sniper's nest".
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you think that trumps the fact he pointed to the window where the
> > > > > shells were found on the floor
> > > >
> > > > Well, they were found there the *second* time around, after Fritz had
> > > > picked them up & put them there, around 2:30pm!
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you think Fritz planted the shells there just to support Brennan's
> > > identification of the 6th floor window as the source of the shots.
> >
> > I kinda doubt Fritz had heard of Brennan before 1:15pm or so that day.
> > And Brennan went out of his way to REJECT the appearance of the "nest"
> > window and to ID a wide-open window.
> >
> > You do
> > > know that other people pointed to that same window.
> >
> > Actually, no one designated that window.
>
> "..in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows
> from the top I saw a man in this window."
>
> Brennan`s 11-22 affidavit.

Brennan was first saying fifth floor. He testified to the WC that he did
not count the floors, but situated the window by saying to Barnett, "one
window from the top" (v3p145). WHich, as you know, cannot be true--that
would be the 7th floor.... "second row of windows from the top" would
mean, yes, 6th floor.

But Brennan apparently did know how to count floors. Dulles asked
Williams if a "man named Brennan [identified him] downstairs....: This is
the man I have seen on the fifth floor window" (v3p183). Williams, in
fact, was in a 5th-floor window. Back to Brennan: "I believe that at the
time he was firing, [the window] was open just like... the windows on the
fifth floor immediately below" (v3p153)

Which means that not only did Brennan point out Williams on the fifth
floor, but he believed that Williams was the shooter at the wide open
window....

dcw

[donald willis]

See my response to Bud, which I just made. How would Brennan know
Williams to "name" him?? Brennan apparently thought Williams was the
shooter, at first. (See the Bud response.)

dcw

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 9:41:15 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >

> >> (Although Marsh
> >> says Brennan was NOT looking at the window at that time....)
> >
> > I challenged Marsh to support this before and he couldn`t, yet he still
> > repeats this meaningless claim.
> >
>
> I did, but you refused to look at the Zapruder frame 202.
>

Brennan said he looked up to see the last shot fired. Unless you want to
argue that the last shot was fired at frame 202, where he was looking at
that frame is irrelevant to the question of whether Brennan saw the last
shot fired.

[mainframetech]

Oh garbage! Here's the testimony of Amos Euins, who was standing near
Brennan:

"Mr. EUINS. And then as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot,
you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right
in there, at this point B.
Mr. SPECTER. At point B, on 365?
Mr. EUINS. I got behind there. And then I watched, he did fire again.
Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.
Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for you now is where were you when he
fired on that fourth time.
Mr. EUINS. I was still behind point B.
Mr. SPECTER. You were still at point B when he fired the fourth time?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Then he pulled the gun back in the window.
Mr. SPECTER. Did you see him pull the gun back in the window after the
fourth shot?
Mr. EUINS. Yes; he just come back like this."


So we have a witness that saw 3 shots being fired. Time to read up on
the testimonies.

> > No.
> > No one did.
> >
> > > There are no holes in Brennan's account. He pointed to the location where
> > > the shells were found. He IDed the guy who owned the rifle that had fired
> >
> > No, he didn't. The report that the shells were found on the 5th floor
> > was in error.
> >
>
> WTF???

A hole appeared in Brennan's testimony when he said he saw the rifle and
did NOT see a scope on it. When questioned by the WC lawyer, he finally
said he wasn't sure.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I have rarely heard that a shooter was anywhere other than the 6th floor
window where the 'nest' was found. However, Brennan was discredited for
his almost perfect identification of Oswald, when others looked to the
same window and could not make out much of anything except a rifle
sticking out, and a vague person behind it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:40:25 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 11:38:40 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 5, 2015 at 9:12:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:11:08 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 12:36:32 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > > > > > > Let's talk about Howard Brennan for a moment. Holy water is to vampires as
> > > > > > > Howard Brennan is to the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Not really. Brennan was discredited long ago.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Right. His testimony runs counter to your dogma that Oswald was innocent
> > > > > so it must be the testimony that is faulty.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And since he said what YOU wanted to hear, you are going to act like
> > > > he's the plum of the witnesses and his testimony is golden...:)
> > > >
> > >
> > > He said what is corroborated by the physical evidence. Your bullshit
> > > story, not so much.
> > >
> >
> >
> > There you go making mistakes again! Brennan said there he didn't see a
> > scope, so are you going to say there was a 'physical' rifle poking out the
> > window with NO scope on it, so it matches with Brennan? Or are you simply
> > admit that Brennan had it wrong?
>
> Of course he got that wrong. You've admitted the Carcano was fired out the
> window. The Carcano had a scope on it so obviously Brennan failed to
> observe the scope on the rifle.
>

I don't "admit" things, I make statements, and I've made that statement
that the MC rifle had to be fired out the 6th floor window for forensic
purposes.

> > Given what little Euins could see from
> > the same corner as Brennan, one wonders why Brennan could see like it all
> > happened next to him. Euins's vision was fine. And Brennan had to see
> > Oswald on TV twice that night before he went down to the lineup.
> >
>
> He didn't have to. He happened to.
>

LOL! Of course he had to! His general description earlier on had to be
firmed up and be more on point. The phony lineup might have helped there:

http://static.thepessimist.com/uploads/2013/09/PoliceLineupComp.jpg

Nope, nothing you've said identifies Oswald as being at that window and
firing the rifle.

> >> And Brennan didn't ID Oswald. He was shown Oswald and made the obvious
> > choice. The guy in the dirty T-shirt with the black eye, next to the guys
> > in suits and clean clothes.
>
> Sounds like a conspiracy hobbyist factoid.
>

Iy might sound that way, but here's the lineup, let the viewer decide:

http://static.thepessimist.com/uploads/2013/09/PoliceLineupComp.jpg

> > Of course Brennan at one point couldn't ID
> > anyone, saying later that he was scared that communists would kill him in
> > his sleep for identifying Oswald. He lied once, and made mistakes on
> > other things. He was not reliable and his testimony causes doubts.
> >
>
> So you are OK with a nurse supposedly sitting on her story for 50 years
> because she said she was afraid, but you won't accept Brennan could be
> afraid in the immediate aftermath of the assassination when nobody could
> be certain who else might have been involved.
>

Brennan made other mistakes, like not seeing that the rifle had a scope
on it, and having seen Oswald on TV twice the night before the lineup.
Phyllis Hall didn't make any mistakes that anyone could find.

Nope, wrong yet again! You'll never get it, but I'll keep trying for
you. Tell us how you determined that a recreation told them that Baker
took longer to get to the 2nd floor in the real case. You've used 'logic'
incorrectly it appears. The actual time it took Baker after the shots
will never be known, but in the heat of the shots fired, a person will
move more quickly if they are an authority that may have some
responsibility in what's going on. Baker had such authority and assumed
it by going in to the building where a shooter might be located. He had
to be traveling as fast or faster than he would usually do on a test.
That would give us the opposite situation than what you've proposed.
Think it through.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > > Certain conspiracy authors have tried to discredit Brennan's description
> > > > > > > in various ways. Those who want Oswald to be completely innocent MUST
> > > > > > > discredit Brennan because the only alternative is to say that somebody
> > > > > > > OTHER than Oswald (but who looked like Oswald) was shooting Oswald's rifle
> > > > > > > from the 6th floor of Oswald's place of employment. That seems pretty
> > > > > > > silly and these conspiracy theorists know that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Odd. I don't think it's silly at all, that some one else was using
> > > > > > Oswald's rifle to fire out the window.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is odd is that you think someone was firing out that window who was
> > > > > not trying to kill JFK. Odd is probably a kind term.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope, wrong! I never said that the person firing out the window wasn't
> > > > firing at JFK or trying to kill him, I said they didn't care that much if
> > > > they hit him or not because there were other shooters that were supposed
> > > > to do the job, and they did. Firing the MC rifle out the window was
> > > > necessary for the forensics. It had to be shown that the MC rifle
> > > > (associated with Oswald) did the shooting.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The MC rifle did do the shooting and there is not a scrap of physical
> > > evidence of shots from any other location.
> > >
> >
> > Wrong again! Your schooling follows: There were bullets striking all
> > over Dealey Plaza that day! There was a bullet strike on the right side
> > of Elm st. at the cub where Stavis Ellis saw it hit.
>
> Where's the physical evidence for that one?
>

Nope, won't do. You can't get away from the bullet hitting the curb by
demanding that someone come up with the bullet. And Ellis and a friend
later found the place where the bullet struck on the curb, so that's what
was left of that strike. but there were other strikes that left evidence,
go check them. There was the strike on the chrome overhead on the limo,
then there was the strike through the windshield, and then there was the
strike on Connally and 2 on JFK, then you had e strike on the curb across
the Plaza near James Tague that caused chip to cut his cheek, and that
left a crease in the curb. Many of the strikes left evidence. Go check
them now that they've been listed for you.

> > There was a strike
> > on Connally, and 2 others on JFK, Plus the one on the chrome overhead of
> > the limo.
>
> Two bullets did all of that.
>

Nope, you have no way of proving such a ridiculous fantasy. Just one
look at the Chrome overhead where the bullet struck tells us that it was a
primary strike, not some silly little fragment or ricochet. Let's look at
the limo strike and notice that it is very round, like a bullet struck and
squashed itself into a perfect circle back when it struck the steel
backing. Here's the image:

http://www.jfk-lecomplot.com/doc_fichiers/Impact_in_the_chrome_frame_redim.jpg


And then we have the autopsy, showing us that the back wound bullet fell
out on the table and never went through the body to go out the throat
wound. That was corroborated by Pierre Finck and the prosectors when
after a long search for the bullet and the path for it, he said "There's
NO EXIT" from the body of JFK for that bullet. That means that there were
AT LEAST 2 bullets that hit JFK, and NO bullet then went on to hit
Connally.

> > And don't forget the through-and-through bullet hole in the
> > limo windshield.
>
> There was no through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield. CT
> mythology. The windshield was cracked by a fragment strike from the
> inside.
>

Nope, WRONG again. Your schooling follows: There were at LEAST 6
witnesses to the through-and-through hole in the windshield, and a few of
them knew about the feature of safety glass that when it's hit on one
side, the other side is the one that loses bits of material. In this
case, the bullet struck from OUTSIDE the limo. A specialist looked at the
hole and from experience Stated the same thing. They tried to cover it up
by saying that the limo was in the W.H. garage on Saturday, the next day,
but it wasn't there and no one accessed it while it was in Michigan at one
of the Ford factories getting a new windshield and a new interior, which
removed all evidence that might have remained with the limo.




> > Then there was the one across the plaza next to James

> > Tague which caused a concrete chip to hit him on the cheek and cut him.
>
> It is probably that was caused by a ricochet of the first shot but far
> from certain. Add that shot to the two which injured JFK and JBC we are
> now up to three.
>

LOL! Pretty "far from certain", for sure...:) Tell us about that first
shot, and what did it ricochet off of to go all the way across the plaza
and then be powerful enough to crease the concrete curb and cut off a
piece that cut a cheek...:)

>
> > The new have the 2 gouges in the center grass of the plaza that were seen
> > by Wayne and Edna Hartman. When they asked a cop what the gouges were, he
> > said they were caused by bullets. The gouge lines pointed at the GK.
> >
>
> Where's the physical evidence for that one?
>

Ask the same cop. The witnesses (and obviously the cop) saw the
gouges. It won't work to try and pretend that if there's no evidence
left, there never was a shot. Are you going to say that the back wound
never happened because we didn't find a bullet? Well, never mind that
one. They did find the bullet!

> > You've tried to argue some of the individual bullet strikes, but got
> > nowhere when you tried to make many 'single bullet' theories for multiple
> > bullets...:)
> >
>
> I've tried to get you to provide physical evidence for those strikes, not
> guess by witnesses. You have failed once again.
>

I've failed to school you properly. See above for the bullets that
left evidence of their passing. There's still too many for you to call it
3, by far.

Huh? I've shown the proof that you're full of it. That there is
indeed "proof" that there was a shooter forward of the limousine, and
probably on the GK. The evidence is the bullet hole in the
forehead/temple area of JFK seen by many witnesses, including Pierre
Finck!

> > If there were silencers used, the folks in front
> > of the fence would hear the sound from the gun. Silencers aren't perfect.
>
> OH. These were selective silencers. The kind that only keeps some people
> from hearing shots while others are still able to hear them. Thank you for
> clearing that up.
>

Not a very logical statement. You'll find that in this case most
people standing around heard shots, and most heard 3 of them, some more.

> > They reduce the noise. In an area like the plaza, there were enough solid
> > walls to echo shots around from many directions.
> >
>
> So your conspirators couldn't afford good riflemen, good weapons, good
> ammo, or good silencers. Everything was done on a budget and they cut
> corners whereever they could. Yet they managed to pull off the crime of
> the millenium and have gotten away with it for over 50 years. Good thing
> for us we have you in hot pursuit. They'll never get a day's peace as long
> as we have you on the case.
>

and now you're attempting to read the minds of shooters long past. You
haven't a clue what their decisions were about weapons or accessories.
And getting away with the crime of the century wasn't all that hard as
long as you had the resources to quickly fix evidence as it becomes
obvious, and had an inside conspiracy that could steer things a certain
way. Like the silly theories of the WC lawyers.

> >
> > > > Most people and even many of the investigators thought there were only
> > > > 3 shots, but the sheer number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day
> > > > put that idea away. If you count the strikes, it was raining bullets on
> > > > the plaza!
> > > >
> > > > Humorously, with all the bullets fired that day, not a single bullet
> > > > from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone at all!
> > > >
> > >
> > > Apparently all these other shooters you have imagined didn't even come
> > > close to the limo or anyone in it. Their shots ended up all over the
> > > place.
> > >
> >
> >
> > All over the place includes many of the strikes I listed above. Use
> > your head for something other than a hammer.
> >
>
> Yes, you listed a hole bunch of shots that ended up hitting no where near
> the limo. Even back then it was hard to find good help.
>

Tell it to the Mafia who probably supplied the shooters. Many of the
shots hit their targets, and many struck around the limo. Some went wild,
but only a few. Certainly the 3 shots from the MC rifle would be somewhat
wild, since they couldn't be aimed properly and still fire rapidly.

If that were true, so what? What bearing does that have on Brennan's
phony comments?

> > No one has said that

> > Brennan didn't see SOMEONE with a rifle. But there's a question as to

> > WHAT rifle he saw, and WHO he saw there. His 'ID' was faulty and he
> > needed 'help' to say what he did.
> >
>
> You've said "they" fired the Carcano out the window. Are you saying they
> fired two rifles out that window or are you revising your bullshit story
> again. You could be in line for the Ed Hoffman Award.
>

Oh, stop the crap. You're doing so badly at making your point that you
have to devolve to picking nits. 'They' ordered that a person (note
singular) to fire the MC rifle out the window.

> > And it was not special corroboration to see a rifle in the window, like
> > many did.
> >
>
> Special corroboration? What the hell is that?
>
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > Any shooting scenario that does NOT involve a 6th floor sniper is
> > > > > > > unsupportable because of the compelling nature of Howard Brennan's
> > > > > > > extemporaneous and corroborated observation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like I said, the only way to completely dismiss Brennan's observation is
> > > > > > > to assert that he was PART of the conspiracy. And, if he was, why didn't
> > > > > > > he make a positive ID of Oswald in the line-up?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't dismiss Brennan's observation. I agree with some of it. He
> > > > > > saw someone in that window with a rifle, and he probably saw the rifle
> > > > > > fire.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And saw who did it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope, that's total bull. He couldn't see who it was. Amos Euins
> > > > standing right next to him with good eyes couldn't even tell whether the
> > > > person was black or white. Naah, Brennan didn't see anymore than the kid.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Just a lucky guess that the guy he identified owned the rifle that was
> > > fired the shells found at the window where he saw the shooter.
> > >
> >
> >
> > He didn't ID anyone from his view at the corner. He identified Oswald
> > later, and had to do a lineup that was phony to do it. They had grabbed

> > Oswald and made the lineup so that Oswald stood out like a sore thumb!

> > Brennan didn't ID anyone, just followed instructions and made the obvious
> > choice.
> >
>
> Oh, so your latest version has them telling Brennan to ID Oswald. I hadn't
> seen that in your previous versions.
>

As usual, your little ploy of pretending that I said something then
arguing with it fails again. I've never said that they "told" Brennan
what to say. If they did, I'm not aware of it. However, the phony lineup
made it easy to pick Oswald out, and easy to remember his clothes and
other features. For some reason he left out the bald spot on the
shooter's head.

> > > > > > > In my opinion, if one is going to maintain that there was a conspiracy,
> > > > > > > they have only the following choices.
> > > > > > > 1) Oswald was the 6th floor shooter but he had assistance.
> > > > > > > 2) Somebody else (not Oswald) was shooting from the 6th floor window.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > #2 is just silly but, then again, there are the Malcolm Wallace kooks.
> > > > > > > Apparently, Malcolm got a hold of Oswald's rifle and miraculously walked
> > > > > > > in and out of the depository without being noticed as a stranger by a
> > > > > > > single depository employee.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm. You left out that there may have been a confederate that worked
> > > > > > for the TSBD and was the one that talked Oswald into bringing in the rifle
> > > > > > that day, and then fired it out the window too.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet you not only can't tell us who that was, you can't even tell us who
> > > > > that could have been.
> > > > >
> > >
> > > > If the investigation were done better, we might know who it was, or if
> > > > they would not have let Oswald be killed in their custody, we might know
> > > > everything.
> > > >
> > > Oh, we're using the-dog-ate-my-evidence excuse today.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Nope, WRONG again! The sentence stands and needs no wisecracks to be
> > truthful.
> >
> >
> >
> > > We do know who fired the shots from the sniper's nest. You just refuse to
> > > admit it.
> > >
> >
> >

> > Sounds like YOU think you know who you would like to have fire the

> > shots! But the evidence says no.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Remember, the intent of
> > > > > > much of the machinations that went on were to have Oswald take ALL the
> > > > > > blame so that the real conspirators could go about their lives with no
> > > > > > problem of being chased down and imprisoned.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Which explains why they fired from two different locations.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At least 2. They had to be sure that the murder worked. If JFK had
> > > > been left alive, there would have been heads rolling. And all the
> > > > political income they expected from the coming Vietnam effort would have
> > > > them all rolling in dough.
> > > >
> > >
> > > We're back to accusing "they".
> > >
> >
> >
> > As usual, a wisecrack and run like hell to get away from the
> > conversation because you can't think of an intelligent comment.
>
> So you consider it a wisecrack to point out you have no clue who shot JFK.

WRONG again! Schooling follows: I've got a good idea, and have named
the top and middle management of the conspirators. Not all of them, but a
nice round sum. I've shown that list ort you, and if you didn't copy it
down, well you might be out of luck for a while.

Chris

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 6:41:15 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marscut

> >>
> >> Yours does?
> >
> > No figuring required, he did what he did. If Brennan says he sat on the
> > windowsill I see no reason to believe he made it up. If Whaley says he
>
> It's not Brennan who is siting on the windowsill. It would be the shooter.
> That is physically impossible with the window only open 13 inches.

And yet LNers want both a 6th-floor shooting site *and* Brennan's comments
re the shooter lying on the sill! Can't have both....

dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

The acoustical evidence proves that there was a 6th floor gunman. It
does not prove that it was Oswald, or Mac Wallace, or Emilio Santana.
Rely on the scientific evidence when you verify it.
Never rely on witness statements which can change from day to day.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Bud]

So you went round and round and ended up admitting that Brennan
indicated the 6th floor. So why did you say that one one but Euins did?

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, I already did, years ago. I have them, you don't.

>>
>>> be seen. Not because he was the shooter, but because he doesn't want to
>>> be shot. Interviewed by reporters that day, he said the shooter was
>>> slender and nice-looking. Well, the first half of that fits Oswald; both
>>> halves fit Williams. Brennan looked away, looked back, & picked out
>>> Williams. Like Euins, he thought a "colored man" was the shooter....
>>>
>>
>> No, Brennan never said anything about Williams. You are just making up
>> crap.
>>
>
> Fast-draw Marsh. There's at least ambiguity here. At the hearings,
> Williams was asked if a man named Brennan saw him come out the front door
> of the depository, and if Brennan said that he was the man he had seen on
> the fifth floor. Williams said, No. But if it wasn't Brennan, it was
> someone who seemed to know that Williams had indeed been on the 5th floor.

How would he know it was Brennan?

[Anthony Marsh]

Perjury. Euins demonstrated that for CBS and the films and photos show no
one where he said he was crouched. Where we do see him is on the south
grass of Elm down past the tree.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before many times we have more than just the Zapruder film.
That is, I have more than just the Zapruder film. You don't even have
the Zapruder film.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where does he say that? Where does Brennan ever say the shooter was a
black man? Stop making up crap.

[Bud]

You are seeing things that don`t exist.

> When questioned by the WC lawyer, he finally
> said he wasn't sure.

Did he ever say that he was sure the rifle he saw didn`t have a scope?

> Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

No one was smart enough to know the numbering of the floors.

> But Brennan apparently did know how to count floors. Dulles asked
> Williams if a "man named Brennan [identified him] downstairs....: This is
> the man I have seen on the fifth floor window" (v3p183). Williams, in
> fact, was in a 5th-floor window. Back to Brennan: "I believe that at the
> time he was firing, [the window] was open just like... the windows on the
> fifth floor immediately below" (v3p153)
>
> Which means that not only did Brennan point out Williams on the fifth
> floor, but he believed that Williams was the shooter at the wide open
> window....
>

No, just stop making up crap.

> dcw
>

[Anthony Marsh]

They? Baker. Don't compound his error. Correct it.

>
>
>>> Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
>>> misrepresent historical facts to frame people.
>>>
>>
>> You intentionally misrepresent what people have written to try to make
>> yourself look smarter than they are. It's not working.
>>
>>>>>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
>>>>>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
>>>>>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
>>>>> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
>>>> acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
>>>> lawyer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Spence threw the case for money.
>>>
>>
>> You just love making up shit to explain away inconvenient facts.
>>
>
>
> How about the "inconvenient fact" that no one was hit or hurt by bullets from the MC rifle? That alone makes Oswald innocent of the murder of JFK.
>

Tell us what left the two large fragments of Oswald's bullet in the
front seat. No DNA found so you think the didn't hit anybody?

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 10:33:06 AM UTC cut

> > >
> > > No figuring required, he did what he did. If Brennan says he sat on the
> > > windowsill I see no reason to believe he made it up. If Whaley says he
> >
> > It's not Brennan who is siting on the windowsill. It would be the shooter.
>
> That would be the "he".
>
> > That is physically impossible with the window only open 13 inches.
>
> He could have been sitting on the row of bricks when Brennan saw him,
> not actually the sill.
>

Bud has a point. That would seem to have allowed room for a suspect to
lie down, head against the frame between the windows. But then Brennan
would have seen even less of the guy, which makes height & weight
estimates even more unlikely. And the guy was obviously a decoy intended
to draw attention to the area. Four witnesses were watching him before a
shot was fired!

dcw

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 11:52:56 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/7/2015 2:26 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 4/5/2015 9:08 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:06:16 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >
> >>>>> We know LHO reported to work that day carrying a paper sack with something
> >>>>> heavy inside and his rifle was found on the 6th floor. Nobody saw LHO
> >>>>
> >>>> No, we don't. You are ASSuMING again.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No assumption necessary. The guy who drove him to work as well as his
> >>> sister reported he was carrying a long brown paper bag. A long brown paper
> >>
> >> Yes a 2 foot bag. Not long enough to hold the disassembled Carcano.
> >>
> >
> > Really? Who measured it?
> >
>
> The FBI based on Frazier's description.
>

Which means they didn't measure the package, they measured a description.
They measured a memory. So once again, you disregard your own admonition
to never rely on a witness.

> >>> bag with Oswald's prints was found next to the sniper's nest. You are
> >>> denying again.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Show me the crime scene photo of the bag in place.
> >> We have the photos of Wade standing in that area. So why aren't his shoe
> >> prints on the bag?
> >>
> >
> > Got any intelligent questions?
> >
>
> Another dodge.
>

So I guess you have no intelligent questions.

> >>>>> carry a rifle into the building so obviously he secreted the disassembled
> >>>>> rifle inside the paper bag and put it back together on the 6th floor.
> >>>>
> >>>> Prove where he secreted a bag and that he reassembled the rifle.
> >>>> You are ASSuMING again.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What you call assuming is simply common sense. You should give it a try
> >>> sometime. Of course that would screw up all the things you want to
> >>> believe.
> >>
> >> So you can't prove your claims. No surprise there.
> >>
> >
> > It isn't necessary to prove every last detail. There is ample proof that
> > Oswald was the assassin and the things that can't be proved positively fit
> > perfectly with that conclusion. Or we could use the conspiracy hobbyist
> > tactic of looking at every piece of evidence in isolation and dreaming up
> > a bizarre explanation for it with no concern whether or not that
> > explanation fits the body of evidence.
> >
>
> That's right so why do you need to make up a Single Bullet Theory?

Nobody made it up. It's just what happened. It is the only right answer.

> Just
> admit that you don't know which shot hit which man when.

Why would I admit something that isn't true. I know the first shot missed.
I know the second shot hit both JFK and JBC. I know the third shot hit JFK
in the head, killing him.

> If there were ample proof then the majority of the public would agree
> with the WC. But they don't.
>

If the majority of the public knew what the evidence was against Oswald,
they would agree with the WC. Most of them got their disinformation from
Oliver Stone.

> >>>
> >>>>> Employees on the 5th floor heard the loud blast of gunfire right above
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, an the acoustical evidence proves that three shots came from the
> >>>> sniper's nest.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We knew that long before there was any accoustical evidence which turned
> >>> out to be bogus anyway.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You ASSuMEd that.
> >>
> >>>>> their location. All this testimony is corroboration Howard Brennen is one
> >>>>> more witness to a sniper in the 6th floor window.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> A sniper. Not Necessarily Oswald.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Oswald is the only one who fits the body of evidence.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Only when you want to frame him.
> >>
> >
> > Every action he took on 11/22/63 indicated he was guilty as hell.
>
> Like waking up and going to work?

With a rifle hidden in a paper bag.

> If any other person ever does something you don't say anything.

Do you know of anyone else who smuggled a rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/63?

> But if Oswald does the same thing you claim it proves his guilt.

Nobody did what Oswald did on 11/22/63.

> Hypocrisy, thy name is WC defender.
>

No hypocrisy. Just common sense.

> >
> >>>>> Brennan immediately found a police officer and told him what he had just
> >>>>> seen and heard. Police entered the building and made contact with LHO on
> >>>>> the way up to the 6th floor, where empty shells were found below the 6th
> >>
> >> You are making up a false narrative. Brennan did not talk to Baker, who
> >> is the cop who confronted Oswald.
> >>
> >
> > You do love your strawmen. No one said Brennan spoke to Baker.
> >
>
> But you went right from Brennam talking to some unknown police officer
> to a police officer entering the building and making contact with LHO.
> Brennan did not immediately find Baker.
>

So you just ASSumed Baker was the cop Brennan spoke to.

> >> Baker was headed for the roof. Not the sixth floor. You intentionally
> >> misrepresent historical facts to frame people.
> >>
> >
> > You intentionally misrepresent what people have written to try to make
> > yourself look smarter than they are. It's not working.
> >
>
> You said Baker was headed for the sixth floor. That is not true. He was
> headed for the roof.
>

Another item for my file of examples of you claiming people have said
something they never did. I did not say Baker was headed to the 6th floor.
Claviger did. Now if you will admit you made an honest mistake by saying I
made that claim, I will graciously accept your apology.

> >>>>> floor window and a rifle belonging to LHO between boxes of books. LHO
> >>>>> left the building soon after the shooting and took a cab to his rooming
> >>>>> house. He left behind his rifle, paper bag, and empty shells.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> That's all you guys ever have. Circumstantial evidence which would be
> >>>> torn apart if Oswald had the luxury of a defense attorney.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> There wasn't a trial attorney in the country who could have gotten Oswald
> >>> acquitted. Gerry Spence couldn't do it and he was undefeated as a trial
> >>> lawyer.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Spence threw the case for money.
> >>
> >
> > You just love making up shit to explain away inconvenient facts.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>> Howard Brennen was a well positioned witness who could hear and see a
> >>>>> sniper in the 6th floor window and a good citizen for immediately finding
> >>>>> a police officer and sending him in the right direction. Brennan heard no
> >>>>> shots from the GK.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> No, he was not. He was trying to see the limo and not looking up at the
> >>>> TSBD. You are misrepresenting historical facts to try to frame OSwald.
> >>>
> >>> You are denying the obvious to try to get him off the hook. It isn't
> >>> working.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Again, I have no interest in trying to exonerate Oswald.
> >> I just don't like it when Nazis frame people.
> >
> > There was no need to frame Oswald. He was guilty as hell.
> >
>
>
> In case you've never been in the real world, you can frame a guilty man.
> As the cops LA detectives did to OJ Simpson or the Boston detectives did
> to drug dealers. Of course, you never admit anything.

Nobody framed OJ. He was guilty as hell. The drug dealers whom you say
were framed got framed for a crime they didn't commit because the were
frustrated and being unable to make a case against them for the crimes
they did commit.

[mainframetech]

Further eyewitnesses to a man in the window:

Amos Euins (near Brennan)
Arnold Rowland saw man with rifle
Carolyn Walther saw 2 men in window
Mrs Earle Cabell
Bob Jackson saw rifle
Malcolm Couch saw rifle

Study the case.

Chris

[John McAdams]

On 8 Apr 2015 21:22:24 -0400, mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

James Worrell.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[bigdog]

Unless their name is John Connally or Buell Wesley Frazier in which case
Tony puts blind faith in their accounts. He accepts without corroboration
that Connally had turned and saw JFK slumped before Connally himself had
been hit. He accepts that the package brought into the TSBD by Oswald was
only two feet long because that is how long Frazier estimated it to be
(actually Frazier's estimate was 27 inches, but I'm sure Tony made an
honest mistake when he said two feet). He accepts this despite the fact
that the torn open package found on the 6th floor with Oswald's prints on
it was 38 inches long. When Tony finds a witness that can bolster his
point, he disregards his admonition to "never rely on witness statements"
because he wants to accept those statements as an established fact,
physical evidence be damned.

[donald willis]

Apparently, you stopped reading right there, and forgot to read the rest
of my post! See below, where I show that he may not only have indicated
*fifth* floor, by number, but also indicated Williams as the shooter!
You're putting admissions in my mouth, Buddy....

dcw

[donald willis]

On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 6:08:26 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/7/2015 8:26 PM, donald willis wrote: cut

> >>
> >
> > Fast-draw Marsh. There's at least ambiguity here. At the hearings,
> > Williams was asked if a man named Brennan saw him come out the front door
> > of the depository, and if Brennan said that he was the man he had seen on
> > the fifth floor. Williams said, No. But if it wasn't Brennan, it was
> > someone who seemed to know that Williams had indeed been on the 5th floor.
>
> How would he know it was Brennan?
>

Actually, that's a good question. The Commission question for Williams
should have been something like, Did someone ID you as you came out of the
depository, ID you as the man he had seen on the fifth floor. The way it
was phrased Williams could and did just say, No.

dcw