What happened to the film of Howard Brennan talking to the police and newsmen?
Walt
out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
gunman, which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
the approimate weight of the gunman, which he estimated to be between
165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt, and trousers
that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
shortly after the shooting, It's obvious that he had that information
at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
police radio???
Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
antbody know??
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- I recall something like that from Trask's book. But was it
film or just photo coverage? I also recall Brennan testifying that
his wife saw news footage of him talking to Secret Service men, but
that has never showed up either. I also remember one witness's WC
testimony re Brennan, & how (she said) he was talking to everybody,
before apparently he talked to the cops! Think it was Vergie
Rachley. And that pic of him looking up at the top of the TSBD circa
12:34 does suggest that he didn't grab the cop right away--he's
talking to other onlookers about someone he saw at the SE corner.
But, yes, he seems to have seen *two* suspicious people up there....
dw
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> gunman,
He didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
>which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
> the approimate weight of the gunman,
Again, he didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
> which he estimated to be between
> 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt,
Can you show where Brennan ever said anything about a "sports
shirt", lying idiot?
> and trousers
> that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> shortly after the shooting,
Which contained the following "white male in his early 30`s,
slender, nice looking, slender, and would weigh about 165 to 175
pounds. He had on light colored clothing, but definately not a suit"
> It's obvious that he had that information
> at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> police radio???
It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the first descriptuion
to go out, refined to "White male, approximately 30, 165, slender
build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
decades as you need to figure this out...
Bud
Yah, when Brennan saw the cops were searching the wrong places
before he approached them.
> Think it was Vergie
> Rachley. And that pic of him looking up at the top of the TSBD circa
> 12:34 does suggest that he didn't grab the cop right away--he's
> talking to other onlookers about someone he saw at the SE corner.
> But, yes, he seems to have seen *two* suspicious people up there....
Where did he say this?
> dw
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb48d543015
>>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
going to say in just a second.
Gotta love it.
And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end (Arce maybe?; ask
Willis about this; you guys can write a new kookbook).
I love it.
>>> "Perhaps there were two men up there...and one planted the shells behind the east end window, while the man in the west end window was totally unaware that the the other guy was planting the shells." <<<
Please, Walt...stop!!
My bladder! Remember the weakness of it!!
Next On The Kook Channel......
TWO BOOBS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR WHO HAD NO IDEA WHAT THE OTHER WAS DOING
ON NOV. 22, EVEN THOUGH THE HEAD BOOB(S) WERE ATTEMPTING TO FRAME
OSWALD *WELL IN ADVANCE OF NOV. 22*!! Details at 11....if we can get
the editor to stop laughing and edit the damn film!
>>> "There are several other possible reasons that the shells were planted behind the east window, but I wasn't there at the time, so I can only speculate." <<<
Yes, you do that very well. In fact, that's ALL you do--speculate.
Hilarious.
>>> "However I do know that the gunman that Brennan saw firing a hunting rifle, was firing from the WEST end window." <<<
Goodie. Walt continues the "hunting rifle" lie. Try finding the word
"hunting" ANYWHERE on the webpages below....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan2.htm
BTW, Walt, has anyone ever proven that the portions of a 5'9" man that
Brennan said he saw in the Sniper's Nest window (on the east side of
the building, of course, not the west end) could actually be seen from
Brennan's 11/22 vantage point WHILE THE PERSON WAS STANDING?
I'm not like Walt The Kook, because I don't EXPECT to have a witness
get every last thing correct with 100% accuracy, right down to the
age, height, weight, and hues of clothing. But Walt seems to expect
this kind of accuracy from casual observers.
I know that Brennan definitely got some things wrong -- like Oswald's
precise age, his precise weight, and there's the differences in the
clothing colors. Plus, I know that Brennan was wrong when he said that
Oswald (and the fifth-floor Negroes) were "standing" in their
respective windows at certain times when Brennan observed them on
November 22nd, when we know for a fact that detail is incorrect,
because we know that Jarman, Norman, and Williams were kneeling and
not standing.
But Brennan was consistent regarding this inaccuracy....from the
Negroes to Oswald on the floor directly above J,N,&W.
But my earlier point is this -- I'm just wondering if any "tests" were
done to show how much of a 5-foot-9 man would indeed be visible from
Brennan's POV when looking through either the half-opened SN window or
(to make Walt happy) through a wide-open window on the west side of
the Depository?
My guess is that the man's face and head (and probably much more too)
would be located above the area of either a half-open or fully-open
window if the person was standing up erect, which would make
identifying any facial features of any such standing man quite
difficult on 11/22/63, seeing as how those windows look fairly dirty
(and there'd be DOUBLE the dirty window panes extending toward the top
portion of the window too).
In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0116a.htm
But Brennan, at SOME POINT on November 22, certainly was able to see
Lee Oswald's FACE at least once, in order to make a positive
identification. And this was almost certainly when Oswald was firing
his third and fatal shot from the Sniper's Nest. (Plus, Brennan
probably got a decent look at Oswald's face just after that last shot
was fired, and just before Oswald moved back away from the squatting
position that he was almost certainly in when he fired the rifle at
the President.)
>>> "The TSBD building owner (Dry Hole Byrd) had that WEST end window removed and stored away as a historical artifact immediately after the assassination, because he knew that it was that WEST end window from which one of the assassins had fired." <<<
Goodie! More "speculation" from a know-nothing kook!
Gotta love it!
>>> "Since thousands of highly intelligent people have recognized that the W.R. is a lie, I'd say that anybody who believes it is probably suffering from that incurable disease...<blah-blah>..." <<<
Funny, though, how the HSCA bought the WC's main conclusion -- i.e.,
Oswald fired the only shots that hit any victim in DP on 11/22, isn't
it Walt-Kook?
Walt, therefore, thinks that ALL MEMBERS of the HSCA were rotten,
stupid shills. Right, kook?
Nice blanket coverage there. Not only was the WC rotten and worthless.
But the follow-up investigators (a totally-different batch of many,
many people) were ALSO, per Mr. Kook, somehow either duped into buying
the WC's WRONG conclusions re. Oswald or were ALSO the same type of
rotten (stupid) Govt. shills like every member of the WC & Staff was.
Go figure.
Blanket "cover-up" coverage--15 years apart!
Amazing anyone could believe that.
But Walt does. Because he's a ....... Moron.
>>> "Walt" <<<
I love the way Walt signs all his posts "Walt" at the end. You'd think
that any kook this nutty would want to keep his name out of it as much
as possible.
Hilarious.
David Von Pein
Actually it reveals ZERO such discrepancies between the affidavit
Brennan signed on 11/22 and Brennan's WC testimony a few months later.
Let's see.....
>>> "The W.C. ignored or twisted Brennan's descriptions." <<<
The WC did no such thing, of course. They let Brennan talk freely, and
Howard was free to say any damn thing he wanted, after such MULTIPLE
open-ended questions like:
"Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
"Just tell what else you saw during that afternoon."
"Anything you would like to add?"
But to a kook named Walter, the above type questions were being asked
by crooks and liars who wanted to "twist" Brennan's words.
>>> "Brennan said the gunman was in his early thirties..." <<<
Which is just exactly what he said in BOTH his affidavit and his WC
session.
>>> "He said the gunman weighed between 165 and 175 pounds..." <<<
Which is almost identical to his WC testimony.
Affidavit: "165-175 pounds".
WC Testimony: "160-170 pounds".
(You're really showing those "discrepancies" thus far, Mr. Walt-Kook.
Are you planning on proving your point sometime during this laundry
list?)
>>> "The two discrepancies in clothing color have already been counted." <<<
And Brennan said "light-colored" regarding the clothing in BOTH his
11/22 affidavit and his WC testimony.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said the man was STANDING..." <<<
When talking about the "standing vs. sitting" topic, Brennan actually
used the word "sitting" in his affidavit and not "standing":
"He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting
for the same thing I was, to see the President." -- Via Brennan's
11/22 Affidavit
But in front of the WC, Brennan said that he saw Oswald BOTH sitting
and standing at various times. So, there's really no "discrepancy" in
this regard either.
Next....
>>> "Brennan said that the window where he saw the gunman was WIDE OPEN (The Warren Commission theorized that it was only part of the way open)..." <<<
This point is never even mentioned in Brennan's affidavit. It only
came up during the WC session. So, therefore, there can be no
"discrepancy" in this regard either (from the affidavit to the
testimony), since Brennan never mentions the window "height" in his
November affidavit.
>>> "I believe that's six major discrepancies." <<<
No. It's really this many -- Zero.
I guess Walt-Kook really meant to say that the "discrepancies" exist
with respect to Brennan's UNIFORMLY-CONSISTENT observations (when
comparing his WC testimony and his 11/22/63 affidavit) vs. the actual
physical description of Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, of course, that isn't what Walt implies above (and what he
certainly implied in a previous post or two on this subject earlier on
December 1, 2007; [see quotes below direct from the lips of the kook
himself]).
Instead, Walt is implying that the WC had to "clear up" (per Walt's
verbiage) Brennan's language that exists in the affidavit, because
(quoting the Mega-Kook again) "Hoover and Johnson knew they had to
discredit Howard Brennan, because the naive fool had stepped right out
of the crowd and started speaking about what he's seen", so the WC
"decided to make him a "Star Witness" where they could get their pack
of silver tongued lawyers to "clarify" the plain english of Howard
Brennan's affidavit".
Hilarious stuff Walt.
It's hilarious because the Warren Commission did NO SUCH THING AT ALL.
And that's obvious because Brennan's affidavit and his WC testimony
are almost IDENTICAL in substantive content. There's virtually NO
DIFFERENCES at all. But Walt thinks there are substantial differences
that needed to be "cleared up" (i.e., hidden from view, no doubt) by
the Warren Commission.
Walt (evidently) thinks that Howard L. Brennan's original November
22nd affidavit and Brennan's WC testimony are totally different
versions of what Brennan saw in Dealey Plaza. When, in fact, they are
almost identical.
And, quite obviously, the Warren Commission was not on a mission to
"twist" Brennan's words or to keep certain things out of the written
record, because they let Brennan speak freely and openly about what he
saw on 11/22, and (don't forget) THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED ALL OF
BRENNAN'S VERBATIM TESTIMONY RIGHT THERE IN THE SUPPORTING VOLUMES OF
THE WARREN REPORT FOR EVERYBODY TO LOOK AT ("discrepancies" regarding
Oswald's exact physical description and all).
Let's face it folks -- Walt's ready for a Kook Award. (He's long
overdue for one of those, in fact.)
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> > out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> > rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> > him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> > plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> > he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> > gunman,
>
> He didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
He KNEW the approximate age of the gunman,
Duh.... What does "approximate" mean???
>
> >which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
> > the approimate weight of the gunman,
>
> Again, he didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
Ditto, dumbass
>
> > which he estimated to be between
> > 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> > characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> > gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt,
>
> Can you show where Brennan ever said anything about a "sports
> shirt", lying idiot?
Others who saw the same man with the HUNTING rifle provide that bit of
information. Arnold, Fisher, and Edwards also saw the man and provide
tidbits of information that Brennan omitted.
>
> > and trousers
> > that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> > shortly after the shooting,
>
> Which contained the following "white male in his early 30`s,
> slender, nice looking, slender, and would weigh about 165 to 175
> pounds. He had on light colored clothing, but definately not a suit"
>
> > It's obvious that he had that information
> > at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> > wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> > police radio???
>
> It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the first descriptuion
> to go out, refined to "White male, approximately 30, 165, slender
> build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
>
> Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> decades as you need to figure this out...
Hey dumbass... There were a number of "slender white males" on the
sixth floor "shortly before the assassination"
Walt
>
>
>
> > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
> > antbody know??
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 06:25, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> > > out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> > > rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> > > him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> > > plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> > > he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> > > gunman,
> >
> > He didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
>
> He KNEW the approximate age of the gunman,
>
> Duh.... What does "approximate" mean???
What does "knew" mean, idiot?
Can you show Brennan indicating that it was impossible for the
person he saw to far outside the ranges he was giving?
> > >which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
> > > the approimate weight of the gunman,
> >
> > Again, he didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
>
> Ditto, dumbass
>
>
>
> >
> > > which he estimated to be between
> > > 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> > > characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> > > gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt,
> >
> > Can you show where Brennan ever said anything about a "sports
> > shirt", lying idiot?
>
> Others who saw the same man with the HUNTING rifle provide that bit of
> information. Arnold, Fisher, and Edwards also saw the man and provide
> tidbits of information that Brennan omitted.
So, I was right to call you a liar.
> > > and trousers
> > > that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> > > shortly after the shooting,
> >
> > Which contained the following "white male in his early 30`s,
> > slender, nice looking, slender, and would weigh about 165 to 175
> > pounds. He had on light colored clothing, but definately not a suit"
> >
> > > It's obvious that he had that information
> > > at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> > > wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> > > police radio???
> >
> > It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the first descriptuion
> > to go out, refined to "White male, approximately 30, 165, slender
> > build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
> >
> > Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> > the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> > decades as you need to figure this out...
>
> Hey dumbass... There were a number of "slender white males" on the
> sixth floor "shortly before the assassination"
Not that many, but I will admit the shooter was one of that small
group. Now, which one of the slender white men can`t be accounted for
at 12:30? Again, take as many decades as you need.
David Von Pein
12:30 owned Rifle #C2766, which was found on the same floor as
Brennan's "slender white male"? (That should narrow down the "slender
white male" suspect list quite a bit.)
Let me guess....Walt's going to travel down Kookshit Avenue again and
say something speculative and unsupportable like: 'C2766 was NOT the
rifle found on the 6th Floor!'.
Right, Walt?
dcwi...@netscape.net
That tracks, but it wasn't as immediate as he suggested....
dw
>
> > Think it was Vergie
> > Rachley. And that pic of him looking up at the top of the TSBD circa
> > 12:34 does suggest that he didn't grab the cop right away--he's
> > talking to other onlookers about someone he saw at the SE corner.
> > But, yes, he seems to have seen *two* suspicious people up there....
>
> Where did he say this?
>
I think it was Dulles who asked Williams about a man named Brennan who
reportedly saw him, Williams, as he came out the front, & Brennan was
supposed to have said something like, This is the man I saw on the 5th
floor. Elsewhere, of course, Brennan testifies that the sniper's
window was wide open like those on the 5th floor....
>
> > dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
LNers just won't give up on this! Nowhere did Brennan testify as to
the type of rifle. But he did provide a clothing description, & you
omit where Sawyer sez that *his* suspect did not have a clothing
description. Never mind how absurd it is to say that someone from the
street would even attempt to provide height & weight stats. And
Brennan thot the guy was *standing*! Neat trick, estimating height of
a crouching person when you think he was *standing*!
dw
>
> Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> decades as you need to figure this out...
>
>
>
> > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
> > antbody know??
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
Uh, Danny Arce?
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > > > officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
> > > > antbody know??
>
> > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> And how many of the slender white guys who were inside the TSBD at
> 12:30 owned Rifle #C2766, which was found on the same floor as
> Brennan's "slender white male"?
But was it used? I don't believe it was determined that the rifle had
just been used. And refrain if you can from invoking the hulls which
Capn Fritz *replaced*....
dw
Walt
Hey asshole .....I can answer the questions for myself, I don't need
an asshole to put words in my mouth.
The question(s) is /are :... How many slender white guys who were
inside the TSBD at 12:30 owned Rifle# C2766, which was found on the
same floor as Brennan's "slender white male"?
Answer:... The question can't be answered by using the known facts.
Fact.... Oswald denied owning that rifle.
Fact....Marina could not identify the rifle.
Oswald "MAY" have ordered that rifle in March of 63, but did he order
it for himself or another party?
and even if he did order it for himself, what proof is there that he
still owned it on November 22 1963??
I've never ever made the claim that you attribute to me...... "That
C2766 was NOT the rifle found on the sixth floor".
C2766 is NOT ....NOT... The rifle that Oswald was holding when Marina
took the ONE and ONLY authentic back yard photo (CE 133A ) The rifle
in Oswald's hand in CE 133A is visibly different than C2766.
Walt
aeffects
let ME guess... Bugliosi hasn't sent you your monthly stipend yet....
right Dave?
dcwi...@netscape.net
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
>
> >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
>
> Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> going to say in just a second.
>
> Gotta love it.
>
> And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
came from a *different* window....
dw
(Arce maybe?
Dave--you're coming around!
There's sort of a test photo, page 536 of Trask's Pictures of the
Pain. Det Studebaker is standing, but bent over. If he stood up
straight, his head & shoulders would be behind those double-dirty
windows & probably be just a blur....
dw
> In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> But Brennan, at SOME POINT on November 22, certainly was able to see
> Lee Oswald's FACE at least once, in order to make a positive
> identification. And this was almost certainly when Oswald was firing
> his third and fatal shot from the Sniper's Nest.
Strange he didn't report to the police right away then--pic on p493 of
Trask shows Brennan at the corner still talking with civilians as he
looks up, circa 12:34; and pix on pp174-7 of Killing/President show
Brennan, earlier, still not looking up, even as the limo passes behind
the sign.
tomnln
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3cb7415a-5e43-4eab...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Somebody inform David that "Rifle #C2677 belonged tro Dr. (Urologist/Pisser)
John Lattimer.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
Bud
It is the evidence. This was a verbatum quote of what went over the
police airwaves.
> Nowhere did Brennan testify as to
> the type of rifle.
No, I think the rifle came from a different source. Like I
mentioned to you before, if Norman was there, and gave his "click-
click-boom, click-click-boom" account to the cop, that cop might have
felt that what Norman described was a Winchester-type operating
mechanism he was describing.
> But he did provide a clothing description, & you
> omit where Sawyer sez that *his* suspect did not have a clothing
> description.
I didn`t omit anything. I included Brennan`s account, and what went
over the air. If Brennan expressed unsurety about the clothing, Sawyer
might feel it best to get what he was sure of broadcast.
> Never mind how absurd it is to say that someone from the
> street would even attempt to provide height & weight stats.
And absurder still for Walt to latch onto these to make the
assumption that it couldn`t have been Oz that Brennan saw.
> And
> Brennan thot the guy was *standing*! Neat trick, estimating height of
> a crouching person when you think he was *standing*!
Yah, I`d say that the description would be more of use to
disqualifier suspects than to narrow it down to a particular person.
"slender", "male", "white", "early thirties" would exclude women, the
fat, the black, the elderly.It`s a crude tool, and accurately
describing a person briefly seen is a difficult thing to do.
Bud
Ate lunch with Doughtery in the domino room.
Bud
dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Dec 2, 7:40 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > And how many of the slender white guys who were inside the TSBD at
> > 12:30 owned Rifle #C2766, which was found on the same floor as
> > Brennan's "slender white male"?
>
> But was it used?
Still can`t figure out the easy ones, eh?
> I don't believe it was determined that the rifle had
> just been used.
Using what method? Filming the bullets leaving the barrel with a
high speed camera? That could be faked also. We do know that a rifle
was fired from that location, and a rifle found at that location could
be ballistically matched to the fragments found in the limo. But it
could be all faked, controlled, whatever. I wonder how we know Ruby
shot Oz, photos can be faked, witnesses coerced, I think it best we
nullify all the evidence, that should help get to the bottom of
things.
> And refrain if you can from invoking the hulls which
> Capn Fritz *replaced*....
Replaced with what? Are you suggesting he happened to be carrying
empty shells with him?
Bud
dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
> >
> > >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
> >
> > Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> > he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> > going to say in just a second.
> >
> > Gotta love it.
> >
> > And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> > some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> > hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
>
> Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
> window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
> came from a *different* window....
Did that "someone" see a shooter?
Brennan said he made observations of Oz previous to the shots. Its
a funny thing, the kooks claim this case is a mystery, yet there is
only one witness who says he saw the shooter, and the kooks use any
excuse they can to disregard what he said.
> dw
> > In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
> >
> > http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> >
> > But Brennan, at SOME POINT on November 22, certainly was able to see
> > Lee Oswald's FACE at least once, in order to make a positive
> > identification. And this was almost certainly when Oswald was firing
> > his third and fatal shot from the Sniper's Nest.
>
> Strange he didn't report to the police right away then--pic on p493 of
> Trask shows Brennan at the corner still talking with civilians as he
> looks up, circa 12:34;
Why is this strange? Why would Brennan know he was unique in his
observations? He said he alerted the police when he saw them searching
the wrong areas, apparentlly it didn`t occur to him immediately that
they didn`t know where the shots originated from.
> and pix on pp174-7 of Killing/President show
> Brennan, earlier, still not looking up, even as the limo passes behind
> the sign.
So, in that instant, he wasn`t looking up.
Walt
Excellent point Don, ..... What's even more revealing is that if
Studebaker were STANDING as Howard Brennan described the light
clothing clad gunman it's obvious that he coud NOT fire a rifle from
that SE corner window.
Brennan said the light clothing clad gunman with the high powered
rifle was STANDING, and he could see all of the upper portion of his
body, from his belt to the top of his head..... And he said the gunman
had the barrel of the HIGH POWERED rifle protruding from the window
and he was steadying the rifle against the window .
The photo reveals that the gunman could NOT have been Oswald, nor
could Brennan have been referring to that so called "Sniper's Nest"
window, because the window would have to be wide open to enable a man
to stand behind it and aim a rifle through the window.
Ben Holmes posted a link to that photo which is shown on page 536 of
POP.
Walt
> > Hilarious.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Here's the link:
http://www.websitewealthcollege.com/JFK/
Walt
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
>
> > >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
>
> > Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> > he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> > going to say in just a second.
>
> > Gotta love it.
>
> > And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> > some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> > hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
>
Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
came from a *different* window....
Is this what you're thinkin about,Don?
Mr. Tague.
Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the
School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was
something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six
windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be
where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had
spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window. We
said maybe this is where they came from.
Walt
> On 2 Dec, 13:42, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
>
> > > >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
>
> > > Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> > > he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> > > going to say in just a second.
>
> > > Gotta love it.
>
> > > And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> > > some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> > > hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
>
> Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
> window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
> came from a *different* window....
>
> Is this what you're thinkin about,Don?
>
> Mr. Tague.
> Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the
> School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was
> something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six
> windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be
> where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had
> spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window. We
> said maybe this is where they came from.
>
Notice that Teague said one of the windows...."had spider webs or
dust, and maybe shots had come through the window"
There is another mention of a window with a bullet hole in it in the
record.....Seth Kantor was jotting down notes about what he'd
seen.....And he wrote something like..." Window that had bullet hole
now repaired"
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 7:40 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > And how many of the slender white guys who were inside the TSBD at
> > > 12:30 owned Rifle #C2766, which was found on the same floor as
> > > Brennan's "slender white male"?
>
> > But was it used?
>
> Still can`t figure out the easy ones, eh?
>
> > I don't believe it was determined that the rifle had
> > just been used.
>
> Using what method? Filming the bullets leaving the barrel with a
> high speed camera? That could be faked also. We do know that a rifle
> was fired from that location, and a rifle found at that location could
> be ballistically matched to the fragments found in the limo. But it
> could be all faked, controlled, whatever.
You got it. And Fritz as I recall controlled at least one of the
fragments.
I wonder how we know Ruby
> shot Oz, photos can be faked, witnesses coerced, I think it best we
> nullify all the evidence, that should help get to the bottom of
> things.
>
Well, Fritz helped you out there--he nullified the empty hull
evidence!
> > And refrain if you can from invoking the hulls which
> > Capn Fritz *replaced*....
>
> Replaced with what? Are you suggesting he happened to be carrying
> empty shells with him?
>
Day returned to the depository over an hour later to take more pics,
tho I don't believe he specified of what....
>
> > dw
> > (That should narrow down the "slender
> > > white male" suspect list quite a bit.)
>
> > > Let me guess....Walt's going to travel down Kookshit Avenue again and
> > > say something speculative and unsupportable like: 'C2766 was NOT the
> > > rifle found on the 6th Floor!'.
>
> > > Right, Walt?- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
12:30. Even he had to admit no one was around him out front to vouch
for his whereabouts....
dcwi...@netscape.net
> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
>
> > > >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
>
> > > Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> > > he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> > > going to say in just a second.
>
> > > Gotta love it.
>
> > > And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> > > some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> > > hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
>
> > Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
> > window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
> > came from a *different* window....
>
> Did that "someone" see a shooter?
>
in that group, perhaps the one who saw the gun, Patrolman Hill,
radioed that the shots came from the *2nd* window from the end
Euins said he saw the shooter, tho, depending on what interview, it's
hard to say how much of him--hand, head, arm....
> > dw
> > > In fact, this photo (CE489) pretty much proves that fact:
>
> > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> > > But Brennan, at SOME POINT on November 22, certainly was able to see
> > > Lee Oswald's FACE at least once, in order to make a positive
> > > identification. And this was almost certainly when Oswald was firing
> > > his third and fatal shot from the Sniper's Nest.
>
> > Strange he didn't report to the police right away then--pic on p493 of
> > Trask shows Brennan at the corner still talking with civilians as he
> > looks up, circa 12:34;
>
> Why is this strange? Why would Brennan know he was unique in his
> observations? He said he alerted the police when he saw them searching
> the wrong areas, apparentlly it didn`t occur to him immediately that
> they didn`t know where the shots originated from.
>
He testified he ran right over to a cop, but even that cop, Barnett,
said he didn't run into Brennan for several minutes....
> > and pix on pp174-7 of Killing/President show
> > Brennan, earlier, still not looking up, even as the limo passes behind
> > the sign.
>
> So, in that instant, he wasn`t looking up.
>
In all the instants in which we see him in the Z film
> > > Hilarious.- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
> On 2 Dec, 13:42, dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 2, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e419cdb4...
>
> > > >>> "The evidence that was intended to point to Oswald was planted. The spent shells were planted in the SN (smokers nook) without regard to the actual shooting site(s). Who knows why the sixth floor gunman planted the shells behind the EAST end window but actually fired from the WEST end window??" <<<
>
> > > Great. Walt KNOWS this happened...but he has no idea WHY the boobs who
> > > he said did it would ever do it? He can only "speculate", as he's
> > > going to say in just a second.
>
> > > Gotta love it.
>
> > > And ya gotta love those boobs who were framing Ozzie-Boy. Just toss
> > > some shells down at the OPPOSITE end of the building and hope against
> > > hope that nobody saw the REAL killer at the west end
>
> Someone in James Tague's little group did see a gun at another
> window. Check his testimony--someone was saying that maybe the shots
> came from a *different* window....
>
> Is this what you're thinkin about,Don?
>
> Mr. Tague.
> Right. I pointed this out, and we turned around and looked toward the
> School Book Depository, and from the reflection of the sun it was
> something on the window. Not the---well, it is maybe five or six
> windows which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be
> where the shots were fired, but it was a different window like it had
> spider webs or dust, and maybe shots had come through the window. We
> said maybe this is where they came from.
>
suspicions about that *2nd* window from the end, & Tague talked about
Hill in his WC testimony. But later, when I talked to Tague on the
phone, he couldn't recall Hill, nor did he mention Hill to Mark Lane
in the latter's film. dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- Could he have been talking about smoke from the rifle??
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> > out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> > rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> > him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> > plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> > he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> > gunman,
>
> He didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
>
> > the approimate weight of the gunman,
>
> Again, he didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
>
> > 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> > characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> > gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt,
>
> Can you show where Brennan ever said anything about a "sports
> shirt", lying idiot?
>
> > that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> > shortly after the shooting,
>
> Which contained the following "white male in his early 30`s,
> slender, nice looking, slender, and would weigh about 165 to 175
> pounds. He had on light colored clothing, but definately not a suit"
>
> > It's obvious that he had that information
> > at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> > wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> > police radio???
>
> It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the first descriptuion
> to go out, refined to "White male, approximately 30, 165, slender
> build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
Very good.... So you believe that this information came from Howard
Brennan.
I agree, Brennan is the most logical choice for the source of that
information. He's the only one, that we know of, who
immediately stepped out and told the cops what he'd seen..... and the
details match with what Brennan wrote jn his affidavit just a short
while later (1 hour?)
The age of about thirty fits very well with the estimate he wrote in
his affidavit of "early thirties" so he was fairly confident that the
man was at least thirty years old. The weight estimate is also a
exact match for what he wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175
pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald. The
statement of " slender build" is just icing on the cake, that the
information came from Howard Brennan..... It's not likely a cop would
have used the term a "slender white male" unless he heard the
witness use those words. Don't you agree, that the information
broadcast over the police radio came from Howard Brennan?
Walt
>
> Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> decades as you need to figure this out...
>
>
>
> > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
> > antbody know??
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Walt
No, I'm sure that the small amount of smoke from a rifle would not
hang in the ait on a windy day for longer than a couple of seconds. I
doubt that teague was referring to smoke.... I think when he used the
term "dust" he was referring to the dirt on the windows. The words
( spider web ) that he used in describing the window, is an excellent
description of what a bullet hole on a glass pane looks like...a
"spider web". He elaborated further that the "spider web" may have
been a bullet hole when he said.." maybe shots had come through the
window"
That indicates that he thought a gunman INSIDE of the TSBD had fired a
bullet THROUGH the window pane and the bullet hole ( spider web)
resulted from that shot.
I strongly doubt that a gunman inside of the TSBD fired a bullet
through the glass window pane....However, it's very probable that
someone OUTSIDE of the TSBD fired a bullet INTO the TSBD through that
glass pane. There is evidence of at least one shot striking the face
of the TSBD during the shooting, and Seth Kantor also mentioned a
window that had been broken during the shooting. As I recall Kantor
noted on Sunday that the window that had been (broken? or damaged?)
during the shooting on Friday had been (repaired? or replaced?)
Now that I know that Byrd had "the assassin's window" ( the WEST end
window) removed and stored away as a historical artifact I wonder if
Kantor actually saw workman removing that window and assumed they were
repairing it.
Walt
Walt
As a matter of fact we just performed that simple exercise....Ben
Holmes provided a link to a photo that shows Detective Studebaker bent
over behind the partly open SE corner window. It's a very simple
exercise to take a ruler and measure Studebaker from his hip to the
top of his head and then use that measurement to determine where his
head would be if he was standing upright.
I'm not sure what "portions" of a 5' 9" man you think Brennan saw
behind that SE corner window BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan
did say that he had seen the gunman who was dressed in light colored
clothes in the SE corner window BEFORE the motorcade arrived but
that's NOT the window he saw him behind, when he said he could see ALL
OF THE UPPER PORTION OF THE GUNMANS BODY FROM HIS BELT TO THE TOP OF
HIS HEAD, as he aimed the high powered rifle OUT of the window. ( The
barrel was sticking OUTSIDE of the window) Brennan could NOT have
seen the man aiming the rifle behind the SE corner window because it
would have been impossible for the gunman to stick the rifle out of
the window and hold it in the manner brennan described.
Walt
Walt
> On Dec 1, 7:20 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> > out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> > rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> > him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> > plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> > he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> > the approimate weight of the gunman, which he estimated to be between
> > 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> > characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> > that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> > at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> > wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> > police radio???
>
> > antbody know??
>
> > Walt
>
> Walt -- I recall something like that from Trask's book. But was it
> film or just photo coverage? I also recall Brennan testifying that
> his wife saw news footage of him talking to Secret Service men, but
> that has never showed up either. I also remember one witness's WC
> testimony re Brennan, & how (she said) he was talking to everybody,
> before apparently he talked to the cops! Think it was Vergie
> Rachley. And that pic of him looking up at the top of the TSBD circa
> 12:34 does suggest that he didn't grab the cop right away--he's
> talking to other onlookers about someone he saw at the SE corner.
> But, yes, he seems to have seen *two* suspicious people up there....
> dw-
Walt -- I recall something like that from Trask's book. But was it
film or just photo coverage?
Thanks Don....Here's what Trask wrote in his book:
Following the shooting Brennan had told police officer Bennett what he
had seen. He was brought to the front entrance but refused to
enter.the building and remained on the front steps where he gave a
description of the man he had seen in the window. He later
related ......" I was confronted by a television news reporter and
cameraman.They wanted to interview me and find out what I knew about
the shooting. I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not
want my picture broadcast. If there were more people involved than the
young man I'd see, then showing me on television as an eyewitness
would be like hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
He kept asking " Who are, and what do you know about the shooting of
the president?". I turned my back on him without answering. He
continued to try to get me to talk even though I moved away from him.
Finally I said..."I don't know anything"
I suspect that Brennan is not telling the truth in Trask's book.... I
feel sure that he DID in fact talk to the TV newsman and give out
information that has been destroyed along with that film.
Following the shooting Brennan had told police officer Bennett what he
had seen. He was brought to the front entrance but refused to
enter.the building and remained on the front steps where he GAVE A
DESCRIPTION of the man he had seen in the window.
I did not want to talk to him and I certainly did not want my picture
broadcast. If there were more people involved than the young man I'd
seen, then showing me on television as an eyewitness would be like
hanging a target over my heart for someone to shoot at.
Obviously Brennan said this, and thought this, long after the
encounter with the TV cameraman and reporter.... He didn't think that
in the minutes following the shooting..... or he never would have
stepped out of the crowd and started "spilling his guts" while the
sounds of gunfire were still reverberating around Dealey Plaza. And
what's more....In the first minutes following the firing of
gunshots,very few people in Dealy Plaza actually KNEW for certain that
JFK had been shot. So It's not likely that the TV man would have
asked him .." what do you know about the shooting of the president?".
I'm sure I read elsewhere that his wife was upset after he returned
from the police line up, and he told her that the cops had said that
Oswald was the ringleader of a band of communists, and he could be in
real danger if he continued to say publicly that he could identify
the
man he'd seen with the high powered rifle in the window.
That's when his wife reminded him that he had been seen on TV talking
to reporter, and giving a description of the suspect to the police.
After his encounter with the cops at the police station in which they
insisted that he identify Oswald as the gunman he'd seen and warned
him of the consequences and after his wife reminded him of what he's
been filmed doing just minutes after the murder of JFK .......That's
when he started getting scared and decided to dance the two step.
Walt
Bud
I don`t know that. I doubt the rifle description was from
Brennan.Possible the description that went out was a composite from
multiple sources, some of who may have wandered off.
> I agree, Brennan is the most logical choice for the source of that
> information. He's the only one, that we know of, who
> immediately stepped out and told the cops what he'd seen..... and the
> details match with what Brennan wrote jn his affidavit just a short
> while later (1 hour?)
> The age of about thirty fits very well with the estimate he wrote in
> his affidavit of "early thirties" so he was fairly confident that the
> man was at least thirty years old. The weight estimate is also a
> exact match for what he wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175
> pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald.
Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds.
> The
> statement of " slender build" is just icing on the cake, that the
> information came from Howard Brennan..... It's not likely a cop would
> have used the term a "slender white male" unless he heard the
> witness use those words. Don't you agree, that the information
> broadcast over the police radio came from Howard Brennan?
Pretty much. And the slender white male was who he said it was,
Oswald, a slender white male..
Walt
Walt wrote:.....It's obvious that he had that information at the time
he was talking to the police officers. So one has to wonder WHY
wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the police
radio???
Dud replied:..... It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the
first descriptuion to go out, refined to "White male, approximately
30, 165, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30
rifle".
Dud, you've already stated that the information given in the police
APB came from Brennan, when I asked the question,...
"WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
police radio???
and you answered "it was"
> > I agree, Brennan is the most logical choice for the source of that
> > information. He's the only one, that we know of, who
> > immediately stepped out and told the cops what he'd seen..... and the
> > details match with what Brennan wrote jn his affidavit just a short
> > while later (1 hour?)
> > The age of about thirty fits very well with the estimate he wrote in
> > his affidavit of "early thirties" so he was fairly confident that the
> > man was at least thirty years old. The weight estimate is also a
> > exact match for what he wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175
> > pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald.
>
> Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds.
>
> > The
> > statement of " slender build" is just icing on the cake, that the
> > information came from Howard Brennan..... It's not likely a cop would
> > have used the term a "slender white male" unless he heard the
> > witness use those words. Don't you agree, that the information
> > broadcast over the police radio came from Howard Brennan?
>
> Pretty much. And the slender white male was who he said it was,
> Oswald, a slender white male..
But isn't that a rather vague discription?? Hell there were "slender
white males" all over Dealy Plaza that day.
That characteristic was not at all unique to Oswald,....in fact it was
a very common characteristic, shared by hundreds right there in Dealy.
> > > Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> > > the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> > > decades as you need to figure this out...
There are at least a few that come readily to mind....Shelley,
Lovelady, Dougherty, Frazier, Arce.......to name a few.
But to get back on track..... I believe the description of the suspect
that went out over the police radio at 12:45 had to have come from
Howard Brennan, because he was the only one who claimed he saw the
sixth floor gunman who was talking to the police before 12:45. You
agreed when you said "it was" to my question of: "WHY wasn't Brennan's
description of the gunman put out over the police radio??? I'm sure
that you'll try wiggle and squirm like a maggot exposed to sunlight
and try to deny you said that but I'd advise you anybody reading this
thread will know the truth.
Since It's obvious that Brennan gave the information for the
description of the gunman he had seen with a high powered rifle on the
sixth floor of the TSBD we can know that he was NOT describing a
Mannlicher Carcano, because the Police APB said the man was "armed
with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle". That bit of information
also fits with what Brennan wrote about the rifle in his affidavit.
( He said he could see all of the barrel of the rifle, as the gunman
aimed it out of the window.) That indicates that brennan was looking
at a "high powered" rifle with a long exposed metal barrel like a
30-30 Winchester model 94.
Walt
> > > > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > > > officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
> > > > antbody know??
>
> > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Walt
Police radio broadcast shortly after 12:45 pm 11 / 22 / 63..."The
suspect is armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
Since It's obvious that Brennan gave the information for the
description of the gunman he had seen with a high powered rifle on the
sixth floor of the TSBD we can know that he was NOT describing a
Mannlicher Carcano, because the Police APB said the man was "armed
with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle". That bit of information
also fits with what Brennan wrote about the rifle in his affidavit.
( He said he could see all of the barrel of the rifle, as the gunman
aimed it out of the window.) That indicates that brennan was looking
at a "high powered" rifle with a long exposed metal barrel like a
> 30-30 Winchester model 94.
>
>
>
> > > > > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > > > > officers and the newsman.... Whathappenedto that film footage, does
dcwi...@netscape.net
There were newspaper reports citing Brennan the next day as having
seen a nice-looking thin suspect on an upper floor. Seems like maybe
more than one reporter either overheard him talking to other witnesses
or talked to him directly....
dw
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
Henry Hanson of the Chicago Daily News wrote, "H.L. Brennan saw a
rifle barrel sticking out of a 5th-floor window.... The man who held
the gun was 'slender & nice-looking'. He crouched in a dusty,
COBWEBBY corner & fired..." etc. UP & AP carried similar stories re
Brennan.
dw
PS That direct quote "nice-looking" wouldn't be my first impression
of Oswald's appearance. Sounds more like Williams....
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
"Slender".... "nice looking" ...."Rifle barrel sticking out of
window".... Interesting, Four pieces of information that could have
been been picked right out of Brennan's written affidavit.....Except
the press would not have had access to Brennan's affidavit. So where
did they learn his name if he didn't give it to them?? And the fact
that the newspapers use the very same words that Brennan used in his
affidavit is a strong indication that they got that information
directly from Brennan.
And that fits with what we know his actions were in the immediate
aftermath of the shooting.....He was talking to everybody in the
vicinity about what he'd seen.
I believe the most revealing tidbit is the mention of a "RIFLE BARREL"
sticking out of the window..... Of course we've been lead to believe
that that rifle barrel was a stubby, little, 5 inch, rifle barrel of a
Mannlicher Carcano. But when the tidbits of info are put together we
can see that the rifle barrel being referred too is a long exposed
metal barrel of a "high powered" hunting rifle lke a 30-30 Winchester
m/94 because Brennan said he could see "all of the barrel of the
rifle" from the muzzle back to the gunman's hand, as the gunman aimed
it out of the window. He also gave a description of the man he'd seen
( it didn't fit Oswald) and the rifle that he thought could have been
a 30 -30. In his affidavit he reffer to the rifle as a "high powered"
rifle, which is a common way to describe a hunting rifle. Many
people use the terms, "HIGH POWERED", "DEER RIFLE", and "HUNTING
RIFLE", when they are talking about a sporting rifle. In fact, Arnold
Rowland called the rifle in the hands of that gunman a "Hunting Rifle"
and a Deer Rifle".
So not only wasn't it Oswald that Brennan saw, it also wasn't a
Mannlicher Carcano that the gunman had in his hands.
Walt
Walt
> Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> gunman, which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
> the approimate weight of the gunman, which he estimated to be between
> 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt, and trousers
> that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> shortly after the shooting, It's obvious that he had that information
> at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> police radio???
>
> Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> antbody know??
>
> Walt
Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the
police
officers and the newsman.... What happened to that film footage, does
anybody know??
Brennan denied that he gave any information to a reporter, but his
denial is full of holes.
When this aspect of the cae is put under close scrutiny it becomes
obvious that Howard Brennan did in fact talk to at least one reporter,
and he was filmed while doing it, because his wife saw, and heard him
talking to the reporter on TV just a couple of hours after the
shooting. What did Brennan say to that reporter?? Since that film
has not been seen since the afternoon of the assassination one has to
wonder what was on it that the authorities did not want us to hear??
Walt
Walt
Walt wrote:
The weight estimate is also a exact match for what he wrote in his
affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds
heavier than Oswald.
Dud lied:
Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds.
Do you want to retract your lie, or do you want me to show the truth??
Walt
>
>
> > The
> > statement of " slender build" is just icing on the cake, that the
> > information came from Howard Brennan..... It's not likely a cop would
> > have used the term a "slender white male" unless he heard the
> > witness use those words. Don't you agree, that the information
> > broadcast over the police radio came from Howard Brennan?
>
> Pretty much. And the slender white male was who he said it was,
> Oswald, a slender white male..
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> > > the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> > > decades as you need to figure this out...
>
> > > > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > > > officers and the newsman.... Whathappenedto that film footage, does
> > > > antbody know??
>
> > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
referring to the low end of Brennan's 165-175 estimate. 165 minus 150
= 15.
David Von Pein
The "at least 25 pounds" part above is a lie (as per Walt's norm).
Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
Plus, I'll add this interesting fact from someone who we KNOW observed
the real Lee Harvey Oswald just after the assassination (Marrion
Baker). Baker said this in his affidavit (which almost perfectly
matches Brennan's description).....
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; 11-22-63
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
Isn't it interesting that both Baker & Brennan thought the man they
saw on November 22nd (Baker in the lunchroom and Brennan from Elm St.,
looking up at the man on the 6th Floor) was about 165 pounds or so and
about 30 years old or in his "early 30s"?
So, obviously, a "165 pounds" weight estimate for Lee Oswald wasn't
limited to just Howard L. Brennan.
But Baker and Brennan were probably part of a pre-arranged "Let's Say
The Same Thing On Friday To Frame This Schnook Oswald" plot....right,
Walt?
Walt
Are you answering for Dud now, Pea Brain??
What's the matter with Dud?....Is he too enbarrassed to admit he lied
in his post??
> >>> "The weight estimate is also an exact match for what he {Howard Brennan} wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald." <<<
>
> The "at least 25 pounds" part above is a lie (as per Walt's norm).
> Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
> Plus, I'll add this interesting fact from someone who we KNOW observed
> the real Lee Harvey Oswald just after the assassination (Marrion
> Baker). Baker said this in his affidavit (which almost perfectly
> matches Brennan's description).....
>
> "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
> 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; 11-22-63
Yes that's the man he encountered on the FOURTH floor.......
Walt
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> Isn't it interesting that both Baker & Brennan thought the man they
> saw
> on 11/22 (Baker in the lunchroom and Brennan from Elm St., looking up
> at the man on the 6th Floor) was about 165 pounds or so and about 30
> years old or so?
>
> So, obviously, a "165 pounds" weight estimate for Lee Oswald isn't
> limited to just Howard L. Brennan. (Baker & Brennan were probably part
> of a pre-arranged "Let's Say The Same Thing On Friday To Frame This
> Schnook Oswald" plot....right, Kookmeister Walt?)
Walt
> >>> "The weight estimate is also an exact match for what he {Howard Brennan} wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald." <<<
>
> The "at least 25 pounds" part above is a lie (as per Walt's norm).
> Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
>
> Plus, I'll add this interesting fact from someone who we KNOW observed
> the real Lee Harvey Oswald just after the assassination (Marrion
> Baker). Baker said this in his affidavit (which almost perfectly
> matches Brennan's description).....
>
> "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
> 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; 11-22-63
>
>
> Isn't it interesting that both Baker & Brennan thought the man they
> saw
> on 11/22 (Baker in the lunchroom and Brennan from Elm St., looking up
> at the man on the 6th Floor) was about 165 pounds or so and about 30
> years old or so?
Interesting??? What's interesting is the description of the man that
Baker encountered on the FOURTH floor matches very well with the
description of the gunman that Brennan saw firing a hunting rifle from
the WEST end window.
> So, obviously, a "165 pounds" weight estimate for Lee Oswald isn't
> limited to just Howard L. Brennan.
Brennan estimated the light clothing clad gunman weighed between 165
and 175.... As you well know, why would you select the smaller weight
estimate?? When I used the upper end of the age estimate ( 30 to 35)
that Bennan gave, both of you assholes claimed I was lying.....so are
you now lying??
(Baker & Brennan were probably part
> of a pre-arranged "Let's Say The Same Thing On Friday To Frame This
> Schnook Oswald" plot....right, Kookmeister Walt?)
I'm compelled to agree wuth your observation that...." obviously, a
"165 pounds" weight estimate for Lee Oswald isn't
limited to just Howard L. Brennan." ...because Baker also gave the
weight of 165 pound estimate of the man he'd seen on the FOURTH
floor..
Walt
Oh yes Dud did in fact lie......Let him correct his lie...He's a big
boy, he can admit it when he lies.
Walt
Bud
Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of thye
range Brennan supplied?
Walt
Walt
> >>> "The weight estimate is also an exact match for what he {Howard Brennan} wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald." <<<
>
> The "at least 25 pounds" part above is a lie (as per Walt's norm).
> Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
The "at least 25 pounds" part above is a lie (as per Walt's norm).
Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
Hey Von Pea Brain...What weight is shown on Oswald's booking sheet for
11 /22/63?? What weight was listed on his booking sheet in New Orleans
on August 9 1963??
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6d73da47-d292-484c...@o42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> "The weight estimate is also an exact match for what he {Howard
>>>> Brennan} wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and
>
> Oswald, at autopsy, weighed an estimated "150 pounds".
>
> the real Lee Harvey Oswald just after the assassination (Marrion
> Baker). Baker said this in his affidavit (which almost perfectly
> matches Brennan's description).....
>
> "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9",
> 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; 11-22-63
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/baker_m3.htm
>
> on 11/22 (Baker in the lunchroom and Brennan from Elm St., looking up
> at the man on the 6th Floor) was about 165 pounds or so and about 30
>
> So, obviously, a "165 pounds" weight estimate for Lee Oswald isn't
> limited to just Howard L. Brennan. (Baker & Brennan were probably part
> of a pre-arranged "Let's Say The Same Thing On Friday To Frame This
Was that Baker's 1st story?
Was that Baker's 2nd story?
Was that Baker's 3rd story?
Was that Baker's 4th story?
Was that Baker's 5th story?
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
David Von Pein
"Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
range Brennan supplied?"
WALT THEN SAID:
"That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
The "estimated weight" of Lee Oswald ("150 pounds") is right here in
black-&-white in Oswald's official autopsy report (CE1981,
below)......
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
I'm pretty sure that Walt has been shown the above document in the
past, too. But, more than one day has gone by since then, so I guess
he feels he can play dumb re. this evidence. That's a kook trait that
gets old....fast.
Tomorrow he'll pretend that CE567/569 were never tied conclusively to
C2766. (That's one of the current games that "Rob The Idiot" likes to
play, too.)
David Von Pein
Goodie. Another lie/misrepresentation spouted by a total idiot named
Walt.
Baker & Truly went straight to the fifth floor after leaving Oswald in
the 2nd-Floor lunchroom. B&T then rode the elevator from the fifth
floor to the seventh floor, and then they walked up one more flight of
stairs to the roof. They never stopped on the fourth floor.
So, I see Walt has added another page to his 955-page book of
misrepresentations....he's placing Oswald on the fourth floor now,
instead of the second. (Or was it supposed to be somebody OTHER than
Oswald that Baker saw during your make-believe "4th-Floor sighting"?
Oswald's identical twin perhaps?)
Many CTers in Walt's "Mega-Kook" league place Oswald on the FIRST
floor during the Oz/Baker encounter, with Baker seeing Oz on the 1st
Floor before B&T went upstairs. Would you like to drag that theory out
of your closet tomorrow, Walter?
Anyway, regardless of which fairy tale regarding Baker is being
supported by Mr. Idiot today, Walt's definitely ready for that rubber
room.
tomnln
>>>> "Yes that's the man he {Baker} encountered on the FOURTH floor." <<<
>
>
> Goodie. Another lie/misrepresentation spouted a total idiot named
> Walt.
>
> Baker & Truly went straight to the fifth floor after leaving Oswald in
> the 2nd-Floor lunchroom. B&T then rode the elevator from the fifth
> floor to the seventh floor, and then they walked up one more flight of
> stairs to the roof. They never stopped on the fourth floor.
>
> misrepresentations....he's placing Oswald on the fourth floor now,
> instead of the second.
>
> FIRST floor during the Oz/Baker encounter, with Baker seeing Oz on the
>
>
>
> Anyway, regardless of which fairy tale regarding Baker is being
> supported by Mr. Idiot today, Walt's definitely ready for that rubber
> room.
WHICH one of Baker's FIVE (5) stories do you believe David?
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
Oh, goodie! Another Mega-Kook joins the fray!
So, Tom "I MEASURE MY AGE IN RINGS, LIKE A TREE" Rossley has added one
additional "story" to the Marrion L. Baker file. It's gone from 4 to 5
now. Sweet.
I guess Marrion must have told Super-Stump Rossley a "fifth" variant
recently, huh? Because Tom-Stump surely wouldn't merely be pulling
"stories" out of his moldy hat....now would he?
tomnln
I gave you all FIVE Official stories David;
Do you No Longer believe in your own Official Records?
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
WHICH ONE DO YOU ELIEVE???
C'mon Super KOOK-SUCKER.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
one come from all of a sudden?
aeffects
> BUD SAID:
>
> "Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
> range Brennan supplied?"
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
>
> The "estimated weight" of Lee Oswald ("150 pounds") is right here in
> black-&-white in Oswald's official autopsy report (CE1981,
> below)......
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that Walt has been shown the above document in the
> past, too. But, more than one day has gone by since then, so I guess
> he feels he can play dumb re. this evidence. That's a kook trait that
> gets old....fast.
hon.... those calluses on your knees must get old *real* fast.... your
cutting and pasting is nonsense, hon..... by the pound, ream, byte
makes no difference, your suffering from the same thing that brought
daBugliosi down.... over confidence in the stupidity of a the american
public....
When you take that type of position Dave, you lose.... you've been
losing this battle for years, gird those loins and except defeat like
a man/she/it.... looks good on a resume too, Dave. You see, if there's
no resume flops, no one will believe you, Dave. You'll be branded just
another shuck-n-jive attention junkie.... Like your hero!
David Von Pein
And who would know more about "junkies" than a Mega-Kook with fried
"Zapruder Ain't Really There" brains named David G(onads) Healy?
aeffects
bad stuff Dave..... stick to the brainless Lone Nut research willya?
You embarrass those of us on the sane side of the street......
David Von Pein
>>> "bad stuff Dave." <<<
Bad weed, eh, Healy? Those 11-year-old dealers sure distribute cheap-
ass shit, don't they? But, being the cheapskate Healy is.....
>>> "You embarrass those of us on the sane side of the street." <<<
Oh, you mean the "sane" people who believe that Zapruder never really
filmed a movie at all on 11/22....right?
And the "sane" people who believe that the Z-Film was "wholly
fabricated", but the idiots who "fabricated" it decided to "fabricate"
a REAR HEAD SNAP so that in 1975 the mass majority of Americans (in a
kneejerk reaction to the "fabricated" film which was apparently
fabricated by total idiots) would be convinced of a conspiracy, which
is the one thing that the "fabricated" film should have been designed
to avoid in the first place....right, Mr. Healy (aka: Grand Poobah Of
Kookdom)?
Any idea why the rear head snap is in that film AT ALL, Mr. Kook?
Better light up another one so you can work on that snafu, huh?
aeffects
> >>> "bad stuff Dave." <<<
>
> Bad weed, eh, Healy? Those 11-year-old dealers sure distribute cheap-
> ass shit, don't they? But, being the cheapskate Healy is.....
>
> >>> "You embarrass those of us on the sane side of the street." <<<
>
> Oh, you mean the "sane" people who believe that Zapruder never really
> filmed a movie at all on 11/22....right?
by all means, show us a picture of Zapruder on the pedestal that
positively ID's ole Abe -- you can't hon. Therefore you got a problem,
hon
> And the "sane" people who believe that the Z-Film was "wholly
> manufactured", but the idiots who "manufactured" it decided to
> "manufacture" a REAR HEAD SNAP so that in 1975 the mass majority of
> Americans (in a kneejerk reaction to the "manufactured" film which was
> apparently manufactured by total idiots) would be convinced of a
> conspiracy, which is the one thing that the "manufactured" film should
David Von Pein
movies either. I guess, therefore, those films were never taken
either, per the fried brain of Mr. Healy.
And I guess the two human-like figures standing atop the Zapruder
pedestal in the photo below are merely figments of my over-active
imagination....right Mr. K-Word?:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/DPlaza/moorman.jpg
Oh, that's right, I forgot! Since I can't positively ID Mr. Zapruder
and Miss Sitzman on the pedestal (they failed to wear their bright-red
neon-lit name tags on 11/22), that means that somebody besides Abe and
Marilyn are standing up there in the Moorman photo....right Super-
Kook?
It's Jimmy Hoffa just PRETENDING to have a camera to his face I'll bet.
Walt
> BUD SAID:
>
> "Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
> range Brennan supplied?"
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
Hey asshole....Why don't you let Dud answer for himself??? I guess
he's too embarrassed to answer after being caught in the very thing
you and he are always accusing me of doing. Here's the EXACT statement
that Dud posted.
" Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds."
He then proceded to use 165 pound as the weight when Brennan had said
the light clothing clad gunman weighed. But what Brennan ACTUALLY
wrote in his affidavit was "from 165 to 175 pounds". The weight he
should have used was the average of 165 + 175 or ......170 pounds.
The weight given on the autopsy sheey is an ESTIMATED weight but but
used it as if it is a FACT. He ignored that word ESTIMATED.... The
very thing he accuses me of all the time.
There's no need to use an "ESTIMATED" weight when Oswald's weight is
recorded as 140 pounds on his booking sheet at the DPD on 11 /22 /63
and 136 pounds on his booking sheet in New Orleans on 8 / 9 /63 .
Where's the DUD???
Walt
>
> The "estimated weight" of Lee Oswald ("150 pounds") is right here in
> black-&-white in Oswald's official autopsy report (CE1981,
> below)......
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
Walt
>
> "Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
> range Brennan supplied?"
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
>
> The "estimated weight" of Lee Oswald ("150 pounds") is right here in
> black-&-white in Oswald's official autopsy report (CE1981,
> below)......
THAT...My dear pea brained friend is EXACTLY the point I was making...
Yer asshole buddy Dud is the one who posted the Oswald's weight as 150
pounds. Here's what HE HE posted..."That the autopsy listed Oz's
weight as 150 pounds."
You're so dumb that you can't understand that Dud posted the 150 pound
as if it a FACT.
Why would I use the ESTIMATED weight of 150 pounds when I believe
Brennan was accurate when he gave the weight of the gunman in the
light colored clothing as:..." from 165 to 175 pounds" and the weight
RECORDED on Oswald's booking sheet the day of the assassination is 140
pounds. The weight difference between the gunman that Brennan saw and
Oswald was at LEAST 25 pounds.
Walt
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
Walt
> >>> "That's the man he {M.L. Baker} encountered on the FOURTH floor." <<<
>
> Goodie. Another lie/misrepresentation spouted by a total idiot named
> Walt.
Hey Von Pea Brain....You seem to be a bit angry, Is yer employer
gettin on yer back for failing to keep the truth hidden?
How much is Senator Spector paying you to monitor this group and
discredit those who would bring the truth to light?
I'll bet he's not happy that you're gittin yer ass handed to you on a
regular basis
>
> Baker & Truly went straight to the fifth floor after leaving Oswald in
> the 2nd-Floor lunchroom. B&T then rode the elevator from the fifth
> floor to the seventh floor, and then they walked up one more flight of
> stairs to the roof. They never stopped on the fourth floor.
Here's what officer Marrion Baker wrote in his original
affidavit.....
" As we reached the 3rd or 4th floor , I saw a man walking away from
the stairway"
You'll notice that Baker says THIRD or FOURTH floor.....He then said "
I saw a man walking away from the stairway"
You'll notice that he makes no mention of a lunchroom....I seems like
he's talking about a large open room, when he wrote that he saw the
man " walking away from the stairway". That doesn't sound like the
man was in a lunchroom two rooms removed from that stairway.
Walt
Walt
Well I'll be damned...There's a glimmer of hope for you. Did you
discern that all by yerself??
Let's see what you can come up with if you use Marrion Baker's
DESCRIPTION of the man he saw on either the 3rd or 4th floor? Here's
Baker's DESCRIPTION of that man:...The man I saw was a white man,
about 30 years old, 5' 9' and about 165 pounds, DARK hair, and wearing
a light brown jacket.
Oswald's DESCRIPTION:.. Just turned 24 years old, 5' 9", 140 pounds
( slender), LIGHT brown hair, wearing a DARK reddish brown SHIRT.
Walt
>
> > Many CTers in Walt's "Mega-Kook" league place Oswald on the FIRST
> > floor during the Oz/Baker encounter, with Baker seeing Oz on the 1st
> > Floor before B&T went upstairs. Would you like to drag that theory out
> > of your closet tomorrow, Walter?
>
> > Anyway, regardless of which fairy tale regarding Baker is being
> > supported by Mr. Idiot today, Walt's definitely ready for that rubber
> > room.- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> BUD SAID:
>
> "Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
> range Brennan supplied?"
>
> WALT THEN SAID:
>
> "That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
>
> DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
>
> The "estimated weight" of Lee Oswald ("150 pounds") is right here in
> black-&-white in Oswald's official autopsy report (CE1981,
> below)......
>
>
> I'm pretty sure that Walt has been shown the above document in the
> past, too. But, more than one day has gone by since then, so I guess
> he feels he can play dumb re. this evidence. That's a kook trait that
> gets old....fast.
>
> Tomorrow he'll pretend that CE567/569 were never tied conclusively to
> C2766. (That's one of the current games that "Rob The Idiot" likes to
> play, too.)
Hey Von Pea Brain..... Why would Dr.Rose ESTIMATE the weight of a
cadaver right there in front of him on an autopsy table with a built
in scale, when all he had to do was record the weight indicated on the
dial??
Walt
aeffects
> I don't have a picture of Bronson, Nix, or Muchmore filming their
> movies either. I guess, therefore, those films were never taken
> either, per the fried brain of Mr. Healy.
here it is, lurkers.... ole Dave can't prove ole Abe Zapruder was on
the pedestal. Ole Dave has to rely on eye witnesses. And we ALL know
how Lone Nutter's feel about eye witnesses, don't we....
> And I guess the two human-like figures standing atop the Zapruder
> pedestal in the photo below are merely figments of my over-active
> imagination....right Mr. K-Word?:
>
Give me a positive ID based on the Moorman 5 photo, Dave
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/DPlaza/moorman.jpg
>
> Oh, that's right, I forgot! Since I can't positively ID Mr. Zapruder
> and Miss Sitzman on the pedestal (they failed to wear their bright-red
> neon-lit name tags on 11/22), that means that somebody besides Abe and
> Marilyn are standing up there in the Moorman photo....right Super-
> Kook?
son, your at a loss for words.... even ole Lester Bugliosi can't ID
Zapruder or Sitzman.... perhaps it was some other White Russian.
You Lone Nut KOOKS simply have no imagination.... you can't close this
out, so you need to posture and post nonsense everywere you can....
frankly, you can do nothing else.... I feel for you, just can't reach
you is all!
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
Ouch! (that must have hurt!) ... Just keep whacking 'em over the head with the
evidence, Walt!
tomnln
> Last month it was just four Baker stories, kook. Where did the fifth
> one come from all of a sudden?
Like ALL of the OTHER FOUR.
They ALL come from the 26 Volumes.
(I only recently found # 5) HSCA III page 127.
THAT's why you refuse to address the evfidence/testimony oin the 26 volumes.
David Von Pein
>>> "here it is, lurkers....ole Dave can't prove ole Abe Zapruder was on the pedestal. Ole Dave has to rely on eye witnesses." <<<
A kook named Healy thinks that witnesses must be relied on to verify
Zapruder's physical presence on the pedestal. (Is it possible to be
this stupid....really and truly possible?)
Obviously, no eyewitness testimony is required at all....because we
have Zapruder himself (plus Sitzman) telling the world within 90
minutes of the shooting that he, himself, had filmed a home movie from
atop the Grassy Knoll.
[Quoting Zapruder via his WFAA-TV interview; paraphrasing a bit.....]
"I had gotten out early to get some pictures. And I got on top
of one of those concrete blocks they have down there by the Underpass.
There was another girl from my office standing behind me."
[End Quote.]
I guess Zapruder himself was part of the crazy "Let's Pretend I Took A
Movie From The Grassy Knoll" plot...within 90 minutes of the shooting
too.
Healy, like Walt, is ready for a padded cell.
David Von Pein
>>> "You'll notice that Baker says THIRD or FOURTH floor {in Baker's original 11/22/63 affidavit}." <<<
Officer Baker was confused about the exact floor number in his
affidavit, yes (which is fairly obvious by the fact that he mentioned
TWO different floors within that document, indicating he wasn't sure
what exact floor he saw Oswald on). Duh.
But in his WC testimony, Baker is crystal-clear....he saw Oswald on
the second floor through glass in a doorway entering into the
lunchroom. (The WC coerced him into saying that, right Mr. Kook?)
Then there's Roy Truly, who must've been "coerced" into confirming the
"2nd Floor" story too, huh? Truly verified that Oswald was stopped on
the SECOND floor.
Truly's full of shit too, right Walt/Moron?......
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 4 Dec, 19:31, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 3 Dec, 14:03, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On 2 Dec, 06:25, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > Shortly after the murder of President Kennedy Howard Brennan sought
> > > > > > > out a police officer to inform him that he had seen a man aiming a
> > > > > > > rifle out of a upper floor window of the TSBD. The uniformed cop held
> > > > > > > him off for a couple of minutes before turning him over to a
> > > > > > > plainclothes officer. Brennan told them what he'd seen and said that
> > > > > > > he could describe the gunman. He KNEW the approximate age of the
> > > > > > > gunman,
> >
> > > > > > He didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
> >
> > > > > > >which he estimated to be "in his early thirties", he also knew
> > > > > > > the approimate weight of the gunman,
> >
> > > > > > Again, he didn`t "know", idiot, he gave his best guess.
> >
> > > > > > > which he estimated to be between
> > > > > > > 165 and 175 pounds. In addition to the man's physical
> > > > > > > characteristics, Brennan described the gunman's clothing. He said the
> > > > > > > gunman was wearing a dingy white colored sport shirt,
> >
> > > > > > Can you show where Brennan ever said anything about a "sports
> > > > > > shirt", lying idiot?
> >
> > > > > > > and trousers
> > > > > > > that were a shade lighter. When reading the affidavit he wrote
> > > > > > > shortly after the shooting,
> >
> > > > > > Which contained the following "white male in his early 30`s,
> > > > > > slender, nice looking, slender, and would weigh about 165 to 175
> > > > > > pounds. He had on light colored clothing, but definately not a suit"
> >
> > > > > > > It's obvious that he had that information
> > > > > > > at the time he was talking to the police officers. So one has to
> > > > > > > wonder WHY wasn't Brennan's description of the gunman put out over the
> > > > > > > police radio???
> >
> > > > > > It was. "About 30, 5`-10", 165 pounds" was the first descriptuion
> > > > > > to go out, refined to "White male, approximately 30, 165, slender
> > > > > > build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle".
> >
> > > > > Very good.... So you believe that this information came from Howard
> > > > > Brennan.
> >
> > > > I don`t know that. I doubt the rifle description was from
> > > > Brennan.Possible the description that went out was a composite from
> > > > multiple sources, some of who may have wandered off.
> >
> > > > > I agree, Brennan is the most logical choice for the source of that
> > > > > information. He's the only one, that we know of, who
> > > > > immediately stepped out and told the cops what he'd seen..... and the
> > > > > details match with what Brennan wrote jn his affidavit just a short
> > > > > while later (1 hour?)
> > > > > The age of about thirty fits very well with the estimate he wrote in
> > > > > his affidavit of "early thirties" so he was fairly confident that the
> > > > > man was at least thirty years old. The weight estimate is also a
> > > > > exact match for what he wrote in his affidavit, which was 165 to 175
> > > > > pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds heavier than Oswald.
> >
> > > > Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds.
> >
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > The weight estimate is also a exact match for what he wrote in his
> > > affidavit, which was 165 to 175 pounds, and that's at least 25 pounds
> > > heavier than Oswald.
> >
> > > Dud lied:
> > > Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds.
> >
> > > Do you want to retract your lie, or do you want me to show the truth??
> >
> > Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> > listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of thye
> > range Brennan supplied?
>
> that the autopsy listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds,
What weight do you think it listed?
> > > Walt
> >
> > > > > The
> > > > > statement of " slender build" is just icing on the cake, that the
> > > > > information came from Howard Brennan..... It's not likely a cop would
> > > > > have used the term a "slender white male" unless he heard the
> > > > > witness use those words. Don't you agree, that the information
> > > > > broadcast over the police radio came from Howard Brennan?
> >
> > > > Pretty much. And the slender white male was who he said it was,
> > > > Oswald, a slender white male..
> >
> > > > > Walt
> >
> > > > > > Now, what slender white male was known to have been on the floor
> > > > > > the shots came from shortly before the assassination. Take as many
> > > > > > decades as you need to figure this out...
> >
> > > > > > > Brennan was filmed by a TV film crew while he was talking to the poice
> > > > > > > officers and the newsman.... Whathappenedto that film footage, does
> > > > > > > antbody know??
> >
> > > > > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 4 Dec, 23:13, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > BUD SAID:
> >
> > "Which part of what I said do you plan to contest, that the autopsy
> > listed Oz`s weight as 150 pounds, or that 150 is 15 pounds out of the
> > range Brennan supplied?"
> >
> > WALT THEN SAID:
> >
> > "That the autopsy listed Oz's weight as 150 pounds."
> >
> > DVP NOW SAYS (CORRECTING WALT-KOOK ONCE AGAIN):
>
> Hey asshole....Why don't you let Dud answer for himself??? I guess
> he's too embarrassed to answer after being caught in the very thing
> you and he are always accusing me of doing.
I don`t accuse you of lying, I show when you are lying.
> Here's the EXACT statement
> that Dud posted.
>
> " Only 15 pounds off the Oz`s recorded autopsy weight of 150 pounds."
>
> He then proceded to use 165 pound as the weight when Brennan had said
> the light clothing clad gunman weighed. But what Brennan ACTUALLY
> wrote in his affidavit was "from 165 to 175 pounds". The weight he
> should have used was the average of 165 + 175 or ......170 pounds.
No, idiot, 150 pounds is 15 pounds off the range Brennan supplied,
as is 190 pound 15 pounds off the range he supplied.
> The weight given on the autopsy sheey is an ESTIMATED weight but but
> used it as if it is a FACT.
I said it was recorded. The autopsy sheet is a record.
>He ignored that word ESTIMATED.... The
> very thing he accuses me of all the time.
I didn`t ignore it, I forgot it, I hadn`t looked at that in a while.
But now you`ve dug a new hole for yourself. If the information
supplied by the professional looking at Oz lying naked on a slab a few
feet away and trying to estimate his weight isn`t reliable, why would
you expect the information from the estimate supplied by a person far
away and not particularily trying to determine weight to be reliable?
> There's no need to use an "ESTIMATED" weight when Oswald's weight is
> recorded as 140 pounds on his booking sheet at the DPD on 11 /22 /63
Who weighed him?
> and 136 pounds on his booking sheet in New Orleans on 8 / 9 /63 .
Who weighed him?
> Where's the DUD???
Sleeping, I think, when this was written.
David Von Pein
>>> "Why would Dr.Rose ESTIMATE the weight of a cadaver right there in front of him on an autopsy table with a built-in scale, when all he had to do was record the weight indicated on the dial?" <<<
Beats me. But that's exactly what happened anyway. (Walt's
protestations notwithstanding.)
Duh.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm
David Von Pein
And yet many CTers think Brennan was blind as a bat on 11/22/63
(despite the fact his sandblasting accident that affected his eyesight
didn't occur until late January 1964).
But Walt thinks Brennan was a perfect walking and talking weighing
scale when it came to determining the true and accurate weight of a
particular gunman in a particular window on November 22nd.
Go figure the irony.
tomnln
Discredited McAdams quotes one of Baker's stories ONLY.
Baker gave FIVE (5) Different stories>>>
tomnln
Brennan was a Lying Felon who needed "IMMUNITY" from the HSCA.
Walt
> >>> "You'll notice that Baker says THIRD or FOURTH floor {in Baker's original 11/22/63 affidavit}." <<<
>
> Officer Baker was confused about the exact floor number in his
> affidavit, yes (which is fairly obvious by the fact that he mentioned
> TWO different floors within that document, indicating he wasn't sure
> what exact floor he saw Oswald on). Duh.
>
> But in his WC testimony, Baker is crystal-clear....he saw Oswald on
> the second floor through glass in a doorway entering into the
> lunchroom. (The WC coerced him into saying that, right Mr. Kook?)
But in his WC testimony, Baker is crystal-clear....he saw Oswald on
the second floor through glass in a doorway entering into the
lunchroom. (The WC coerced him into saying that, right Mr. Kook?)
Yes, he did say he had encountered Oswald in the second floor
lunchroom, and I believe that oswald corroborated the meeting when he
was being questioned by Captain Fritz......But that was on the SECOND
floor. Apparently Baker completely dismissed Oswald as a suspictious
character after that encounter because there was absolutely NOTHING
suspictious about Oswald in that lunchroom.
And it's not surprising that Baker would have dismissed Oswald because
I'm sure he would have expected the shooter to be on a higher floor
than the second floor less than 90 seconds after the shots were
fired. ( That's just plain common sense) Baker thought the shots
might have come from the roof of the TSBD so common sense would have
dictated that the shooter was probably higher than the second floor
just a few seconds after the shooting. Then when Baker encountered the
man on either the third or fourth floor that man was closer to the
area where Baker had assumed the shots had come from. He said in his
original affidavit that when he reached either the third or fourth
floor he saw a man WALKING AWAY from the stairs ( indicating that the
man had just came down from either the fifth or fourth floor) He
called to the man, and told him to "come here". The man then turned
around and came to where Baker was standing with the his revolver in
his hand. About this time Roy Truly arrived and vouched for the man
by saying " He works here" whereupon Baker turned him loose and
continued on to the roof.
Baker's words of ......."3rd or 4th floor",..." He was walking away
from the stairs"... "I called to the man"... and "he turned around
and came back" are all indicators that he was not referring to the
2nd floor lunchroom encounter with Lee Oswald.
Baker would not have seen Oswald walking away from the stairs, because
Oswald was standing in front of the coke machine with a coke in his
hands. And he would not have "called to" Oswald because Oswald was
already right there in front of him, And Oswald would not have
"turned around and came back" because he was already within a few feet
of Baker.
Walt
David Von Pein
Baker let Oswald go because Roy Truly vouched for Oswald.
Duh.
>>> "Then when Baker encountered the man on either the third or fourth floor..." <<<
Baker encountered nobody on the third or fourth floor, kook.
>>> "Baker would not have seen Oswald walking away from the stairs, because Oswald was standing in front of the coke machine with a coke in his hands. And he would not have "called to" Oswald because Oswald was already right there in front of him, And Oswald would not have "turned around and came back" because he was already within a few feet of Baker." <<<
Kook Alert!
Walt's on the premises again!
Walt
> >>> "Apparently Baker completely dismissed Oswald as a suspicious character after that encounter because there was absolutely NOTHING suspicious about Oswald in that lunchroom." <<<
>
> Baker let Oswald go because Roy Truly vouched for Oswald.
>
> Duh.
Is it your argument then that Baker was still suspicious of Oswald,
but let him go just because Roy Truly vouched for him?
>
> >>> "Then when Baker encountered the man on either the third or fourth floor..." <<<
>
> Baker encountered nobody on the third or fourth floor, kook.
Well, He sure as hell wrote that down in his original
affidavit.....And it's not likely that he only ran up ONE flight of
stairs to the second floor and thought thought he had ran up three or
four flights. He was confused about the floor on which he had
encountered the 165 pound, dark haired man, who was wearing a light
brown jacket, but he sure as hell would have known that he had only
ran up a single flight of stairs.
>
> >>> "Baker would not have seen Oswald walking away from the stairs, because Oswald was standing in front of the coke machine with a coke in his hands. And he would not have "called to" Oswald because Oswald was already right there in front of him, And Oswald would not have "turned around and came back" because he was already within a few feet of Baker." <<<
>
> Kook Alert!
>
> Walt's on the premises again!
If you don't start doing a better job of discrediting these posts yer
gonna lose yer job.... And I don't want that, because kickin yer ass
with the facts is a blast..... Is this the best you can do??
Walt
David Von Pein
(And probably has.)
Baker had no reason to detain Oswald after Truly vouched for him as
just another TSBD employee. Why would Baker be suspicious of Oz after
that point? Do you think Oswald was carrying the rifle on him or
something to arouse Marrion's suspicions?
And Baker never wrote the words "drinking a Coke" in that Sept. '64
FBI document. Somebody else wrote those words (probably the FBI man).
Baker merely corrected and initialed the document.
Of course, you already know all that stuff...but since the day is new,
you must pretend to play dumb about these facts (yet again).
It's one of the favorite games played amongst you CT-Kooks....all
debunked stuff becomes undebunked every 24.1 hours.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "You'll notice that Baker says THIRD or FOURTH floor {in Baker's original 11/22/63 affidavit}." <<<
>
> Officer Baker was confused about the exact floor number in his
> affidavit, yes (which is fairly obvious by the fact that he mentioned
> TWO different floors within that document, indicating he wasn't sure
> what exact floor he saw Oswald on). Duh.
>
> But in his WC testimony, Baker is crystal-clear....he saw Oswald on
> the second floor through glass in a doorway entering into the
> lunchroom. (The WC coerced him into saying that, right Mr. Kook?)
>
to the last door hinge. A very memorable event, setting. Okay, he
didn't think the lunchroom worth mentioning in his 11/22 statement,
but what the hey! But, uh oh, he plumb forgot the lunchroom again
when he talked for "JFK First Day Evidence" years later. Not one
word. No indication that he ran into Oswald there. Actually,
indication that he ran into O on the first floor, before he & Truly
reached the back elevators/stairs.... Another example it seems of
*preparation* for the Commission, preparation later forgotten, as
things that didn't happen often are....
dw
Walt
> A dead flea could kick Walt's ass regarding the JFK case....easily.
> (And probably has.)
>
> Baker had no reason to detain Oswald after Truly vouched for him as
> just another TSBD employee. Why would Baker be suspicious of Oz after
> that point? Do you think Oswald was carrying the rifle on him or
> something to arouse Marrion's suspicions?
Hey yer the one who said...." Baker let Oswald go because Roy Truly
vouched for Oswald.... Duh."
Seems like you think Baker was suspictious of Oswald ( although there
was nothing to warrant that suspiction) and the only reason Baker
turned him loose was because Roy Truly said " I know him, he works
here". Duh!
>
> And Baker never wrote the words "drinking a Coke" in that Sept. '64
> FBI document. Somebody else wrote those words (probably the FBI man).
> Baker merely corrected and initialed the document.
We both know that's a crock.... Somewhere in the evidence there is /
was a statement where Baker said that Oswald was drinking a coke when
he and Truly saw him in the lunchroom.
The Warren Commission realized that this statement was a major problem
because it crushed their THEORY about Oswald dashing down the stairs
and arriving in the lunchroom before Baker got there. They had to
expunge that bit about Oswald drinking a coke or the whole shaky story
would collapse.
cdddraftsman
Walt sure fire as hell will never become our Nation's first Hillbilly
Assassinologist !
He's too dumb to play dumb dumb and be
believable .........:-) ..............tl
cdddraftsman
Every Ct Kook Has A Over Active Imagination and A Under Active Sense
Of
Patriotism !
tl
Walt
> On Dec 5, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:> >>> "You'll notice that Baker says THIRD or FOURTH floor {in Baker's original 11/22/63 affidavit}." <<<
>
> > Officer Baker was confused about the exact floor number in his
> > affidavit, yes (which is fairly obvious by the fact that he mentioned
> > TWO different floors within that document, indicating he wasn't sure
> > what exact floor he saw Oswald on). Duh.
>
> > But in his WC testimony, Baker is crystal-clear....he saw Oswald on
> > the second floor through glass in a doorway entering into the
> > lunchroom. (The WC coerced him into saying that, right Mr. Kook?)
>
Yes, "crystal-clear" for his WC stint. Very thorough, detailed, down
to the last door hinge. A very memorable event, setting. Okay, he
didn't think the lunchroom worth mentioning in his 11/22 statement,
but what the hey! But, uh oh, he plumb forgot the lunchroom again
when he talked for "JFK First Day Evidence" years later. Not one
word. No indication that he ran into Oswald there. Actually,
indication that he ran into O on the first floor, before he & Truly
reached the back elevators/stairs.... Another example it seems of
*preparation* for the Commission, preparation later forgotten, as
things that didn't happen often are....
dw
Great post Don.....
Yes, "crystal-clear" for his WC stint. Very thorough, detailed, down
to the last door hinge. A very memorable event, setting. Okay, he
didn't think the lunchroom worth mentioning in his 11/22 statement,
but what the hey! But, uh oh, he plumb forgot the lunchroom again
when he talked for "JFK First Day Evidence" years later. Not one
word. No indication that he ran into Oswald there. Actually,
indication that he ran into O on the first floor, before he & Truly
reached the back elevators/stairs.... Another example it seems of
*preparation* for the Commission, preparation later forgotten, as
things that didn't happen often are....
dw
You make it "crystal-clear" that "someone" thought Baker's affidavit
needed to be "clarified"
ie: He needed to add in things that he hadn't said in his original
affidavit, and expunge some things he had said.
It's amazing that someone as intelligent as DVP can actually believe
any of this crap. Even a very mentally challenged person knows that
memory of an event does NOT become clearer with the passage of time,
and yet he believes that Baker remembered tiny seemingly unimportant
details months and years after the event.
I tell ya Don....I think Von Pea brain has a hidden agenda.
Walt
>
>
>
> > Then there's Roy Truly, who must've been "coerced" into confirming the
> > "2nd Floor" story too, huh? Truly verified that Oswald was stopped on
> > the SECOND floor.
>
> > Truly's full of shit too, right Walt/Moron?......
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm- Hide quoted text -
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Every one of these damn yankees has A Over Active Imagination and A
Under Active Sense Of Patriotism !
British General.....1776
Liberty is a boisterous sea...... Timid men prefer the calm of
despotism
Tom Jefferson....