Brennan's poor eyesight
Maggsy
davidemerling
> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
Yes, but to an injury sustained AFTER November 22, 1963.
Some CTs like to make this point but conveniently fail to
mention WHEN his eyesight became poor.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
JoeZircon
> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
I searched "Brennan eyesight" on this group and found a ton of
previous discussions of just this point.
For example, here is his testimony on this point before the Warren
Commission:
Mr. BELIN. By the way, Mr. Brennan, I note that you have GLASSES with
you here today.
Were you wearing glasses at the time of the incident that you related
here?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. I only use glasses to see fine print and more
especially the Bible and blueprint.
Mr. BELIN. And have you had your eyes checked within the past 2 or 3
years?
Mr. BRENNAN. These here were prescriptioned, I believe, a possibility
less than a year before the incident.
Mr. DULLES. Does that mean you are farsighted?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)
Mr. BELIN. Has there been anything that has happened since the time
of
November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What has happened?
Mr. BRENNAN. The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.
Mr. BELIN. This is January of 1964?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I
believe,
in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was
completely
blind for about 6 hours.
Mr. BELIN. How is your eyesight today?
Mr. BRENNAN. He says it is not good.
Mr. BELIN. But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
col...@bigpond.net.au
> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
There are issues other his supposed poor eyesight [yes I accept his
vision was only affected after the assassination] Since Brennan was
the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
height, weight, age, and physical build of the man over one hundred
feet away, "sitting or kneeling" behind a concrete ledge and a double
thickness of glass. Brennan even said that the man was standing which
is impossible because the window ledge is only one foot high. In fact,
the description of Oswald matches closely what was in army
intelligence files.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 9, 6:28 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
>
> There are issues other his supposed poor eyesight [yes I accept his
> vision was only affected after the assassination] Since Brennan was
That is not quite the whole story. Brennan did not actually see the
gunman's face and other witnesses saw a person in that window with a rifle.
> the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
> been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
> assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
False conclusion based on a false premise. Oswald was not the only
witness. Other witnesses also gave descriptions. There may have been
other witnesses we don't know about who said something to a cop.
> height, weight, age, and physical build of the man over one hundred
> feet away, "sitting or kneeling" behind a concrete ledge and a double
He was not sitting or kneeling behind a concrete ledge at the time.
He was sitting on top of the wall at the top of the reflecting pool. You
can see him in the Zapruder film. There are plenty of reasons to
downgrade Brennan without making up lies about him.
yeuhd
Oswald was in the Marines, not the Army.
Brennan's affidavit made on the afternoon of the assassination: "He
was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and
would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds."
Police broadcast, 12:45: "White male, thirty, slender build, five feet
ten inches, one hundred sixty-five pounds."
Police broadcast, 12:48: "A white male, approximately thirty, slender
build, five feet ten, weighs one sixty-five."
Police broadcast, 12:55: "White male, approximately thirty, slender
build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five."
Oswald was 24, and weighed 150 pounds. If someone were trying to frame
Oswald, you think they would have been more accurate. Nothing in Oswald's
military personnel file said he was 30 and weighed 165 pounds.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158a.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.htm
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0369b.htm
As for Brennan's belief that Oswald was standing, the window ledges in the
TSBD were lower than normal, thus a person sitting or kneeling would
appear to be at standing height to the window ledge. Brennan likewise
testified that he thought the TSBD employees at the fifth floor windows
were standing, although in fact they were kneeling.
John McAdams
The Dillard photo shows two of the black guys on the fifth floor in
the windows, and they both appear to be standing.
But we know they were not. The window sills on the 5th floor were
very low. The WCR has a recreation photo.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> cole...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
> > the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
> > been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
> > assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
>
> False conclusion based on a false premise. Oswald was not the only
> witness.
Witness? Are you confusing Oswald with Brennan?
> He was not sitting or kneeling behind a concrete ledge at the time.
> He was sitting on top of the wall at the top of the reflecting pool.
He's talking about Oswald being behind a concrete ledge, not Brennan.
col...@bigpond.net.au
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not making lies about him. The Warren Commission made the
conlkulsion that the descriptiopn of the gunman had come from Brennan.
col...@bigpond.net.au
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: Brennan was the only witness who saw a man firing a gun
from the TSBD.
col...@bigpond.net.au
If you are interested in Brennan, the follwing article may be od some
use:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/28th_Issue/id_draft.html
Anthony Marsh
Not true. Other witnesses also saw a man firing a gun from the TSBD.
None saw his face. Euins saw someone else in the TSBD.
Anthony Marsh
Then don't say he was kneeling behind a concrete ledge at the the time
of the shots. And don't say he had poor eyesight then.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 10, 6:05 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> cole...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>>> the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
>>> been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
>>> assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
>> False conclusion based on a false premise. Oswald was not the only
>> witness.
>
> Witness? Are you confusing Oswald with Brennan?
>
Yes, Brennan was not the only witness.
>> He was not sitting or kneeling behind a concrete ledge at the time.
>> He was sitting on top of the wall at the top of the reflecting pool.
>
> He's talking about Oswald being behind a concrete ledge, not Brennan.
>
>
Hard to tell when you snip out the context.
John McAdams
There is really no doubt he attended the lineup. This article is just
a classic case of "if I look at the documents closely enough, I can
find some discrepancy which I can blow up into a massive conspiracy
theory.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
It's not a mystery at all.
Further, if you are going to claim that some spooky forces produced
the description of Oswald, you need to deal with the following.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0108a.htm
John McAdams
>On Oct 10, 11:51=A0am, cole...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158a.ht=
>m
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0337b.ht=
>m
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0369b.ht=
>m
>
>As for Brennan's belief that Oswald was standing, the window ledges in the
>TSBD were lower than normal, thus a person sitting or kneeling would
>appear to be at standing height to the window ledge. Brennan likewise
>testified that he thought the TSBD employees at the fifth floor windows
>were standing, although in fact they were kneeling.
>
>
As for the nonsense that the description came from the Army
Intelligence file, there is this:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0108a.htm
It's true that Jarman doesn't say he heard Brennan give a
*description,* but he was clearly around talking about what he saw,
which clearly included a gunman.
Robert Harris
>Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
That doesn't matter, because the regulars in this newsgroup have told us
over and over and over and over again, how unreliable the witnesses were.
We have also been told that most of them are consumate liars, or suffered
from mental problems. And that goes double for witnesses who changed their
story!!
Therefore, I am sure that no-one around here is going to believe Mr.
Brennan's testimony!
Isn't that right everybody??
Isn't it?
Ummm... anybody?
Robert Harris
Maggsy
> On 8 Oct 2009 18:28:30 -0400, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
>
> That doesn't matter, because the regulars in this newsgroup have told us
> over and over and over and over again, how unreliable the witnesses were.
>
> We have also been told that most of them are consumate liars, or suffered
> from mental problems. And that goes double for witnesses who changed their
> story!!
>
This is true. Eyewitness testimony if often unreliable so yes it should be
down graded and more evidence put on scientific evidence, but of course
many would say that was planted and Oswald was framed, but is there any
real credible evidence for that?
davidemerling
Here's something many of you conspiracy lovers can't seem to wrap your
mind around.
A witness is deemed to lose credibility when there seems to be a self-
serving reason for lying. You have to be able to use good judgment and
common sense to discern whether somebody is simply wrong or lying. You
also have to use good judgment when it appears a person is trying to get
the spotlight on them by adding details to a story that are completely
unwarranted. They're trying to be important when they actually have
nothing important to add. A witness can say something credible and STILL
make statements that are inaccurate. Some witnesses are just a bit kooky
and start making stuff up after having made statements that are consistent
with the evidence and other testimony. We have a lot of people associated
with this case and some of them are not exactly rocket scientists.
I'm not talking about Brennan - I'm just speaking in generalities.
This reminds me of something that came up in the recent McAdams- DiEugenio
debate.
DiEugenio wants to discount everything Helen Markham said because,
apparently, she claimed to be talking to a "dead man" (Officer Tippit).
It's totally reasonable to accept her basic testimony about her
observations of Oswald (because they are consistent with events and other
testimony) and discount her added details of talking with Officer Tippit.
People do that sometimes and a good investigator can often make these fine
distinctions. You don't always throw the baby out with the bath water.
I differentiate this with the evolving statements of somebody like Jean
Hill. Subsequently, she adds CRITICAL details that one would not normally
leave out. That causes her to lose credibility. Plus, she shows signs of
an individual seeking publicity and attention (i.e. self-serving). In
addition, her subsequent statements are not corroborated and are
inconsistent with more compelling evidence. Yet, not EVERYTHING Jean Hill
has said should necessarily be discounted. She is a good example of an
individual with whom you must be careful about what you accept.
Making these distinctions is sometimes more of an art than a science. This
is why battle lines always seem to be drawn around all these statements.
It's a matter of personal perception and has much to do with one's
worldview. Clearly, people's predispositions come into play.
When some people read how Jean Hill claims to have seen a flash of light
and gunman on the grassy knoll - they believe her; especially if they are
a conspiracist.
Other people hear that and immediately draw the conclusion that she's full
of crap.
There are logical and common sense ways of parsing these things out.
Sadly, not everybody has the ability to do this. Some are better at it
than others. People experienced with complex investigations and dealing
with a wide assortment of witnesses are typically pretty good at this sort
of thing. Typically lawyers are pretty good at it. Professional
investigators are pretty good at it. Are they infallible? No. But, more
often than not, their instincts are correct.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Thalia
> On 10 Oct 2009 11:51:25 -0400, cole...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>
> >On Oct 9, 6:28=A0am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
>
> >There are issues other his supposed poor eyesight [yes I accept his
> >vision was only affected after the assassination] Since Brennan was
> >the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
> >been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
> >assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
> >height, weight, age, and physical build of the man over one hundred
> >feet away, "sitting or kneeling" behind a concrete ledge and a double
> >thickness of glass. Brennan even said that the man was standing which
> >is impossible because the window ledge is only one foot high. In fact,
> >the description of Oswald matches closely what was in army
> >intelligence files.
>
> It's not a mystery at all.
>
> Further, if you are going to claim that some spooky forces produced
> the description of Oswald, you need to deal with the following.
>
I don't doubt that Brennan saw a man with a gun sticking out the
window. I don't accept that he gave the description of the man put out
over the radio. Besides, the witnesses who saw the gumnan in the TSBD
said he was wearing a light coloured shirt: Oswald wore a rust, brown
coloured shirt to work that day. A blow up of a photograph taken of
the TSBD that day shows a larger set man in the window.
Robert Harris
<d6919363-b350-4aa5...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:21?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 8 Oct 2009 18:28:30 -0400, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
> >
> > That doesn't matter, because the regulars in this newsgroup have told us
> > over and over and over and over again, how unreliable the witnesses were.
> >
> > We have also been told that most of them are consumate liars, or suffered
> > from mental problems. And that goes double for witnesses who changed their
> > story!!
> >
> > Therefore, I am sure that no-one around here is going to believe Mr.
> > Brennan's testimony!
> >
> > Isn't that right everybody??
> >
> > Isn't it?
> >
> > Ummm... anybody?
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Here's something many of you conspiracy lovers can't seem to wrap your
> mind around.
David, why did you just call me a "conspiracy lover"?
Exactly how many conspiracies do you think I love?
Other than the JFK case, please name the conspiracies you saw me talk
about which convinced you that I earned such a title.
Robert Harris
Maggsy
Please provide this photograph?
yeuhd
> I don't doubt that Brennan saw a man with a gun sticking out the
> window. I don't accept that he gave the description of the man put out
> over the radio. Besides, the witnesses who saw the gumnan in the TSBD
> said he was wearing a light coloured shirt
How many witnesses would that be?
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 12, 7:21 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 10 Oct 2009 11:51:25 -0400, cole...@bigpond.net.au wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 9, 6:28=A0am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Did Brennan really have poor eyesight?
>>> There are issues other his supposed poor eyesight [yes I accept his
>>> vision was only affected after the assassination] Since Brennan was
>>> the only witness who saw the actual gunman, his description must have
>>> been the basis for the police broadcast 30 minutes after the
>>> assassination. It is a mystery how Brennan could have estimated the
>>> height, weight, age, and physical build of the man over one hundred
>>> feet away, "sitting or kneeling" behind a concrete ledge and a double
>>> thickness of glass. Brennan even said that the man was standing which
>>> is impossible because the window ledge is only one foot high. In fact,
>>> the description of Oswald matches closely what was in army
>>> intelligence files.
>> It's not a mystery at all.
>>
>> Further, if you are going to claim that some spooky forces produced
>> the description of Oswald, you need to deal with the following.
>>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3...
>>
>> .John
>>
>> --
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> I don't doubt that Brennan saw a man with a gun sticking out the
I do. I don't think the shooter COULD stick the gun out the window. One
can see PART of the rifle in the window from the reflecting pool.
col...@bigpond.net.au
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's in Robert Grodens "Killing of a President" page 208-209. The photo
was taken by Dallas Morning News photographer Tom Dillard, approximately
15 seconds after the last shot was fired. It is of the sixth floor west
end windows. The man is heavy set and wearing a white t-shirt and is
peering out the window. Usually this photo is cropped - the left side is
removed. Groden states - "A shot fired from this window would match either
of Connally's wounds, explaining how the governor was hit on such a sharp
right-to-left trajectory at a steep, downward angle."
I don't know if it's online.
davidemerling
> David, why did you just call me a "conspiracy lover"?
>
> Exactly how many conspiracies do you think I love?
>
> Other than the JFK case, please name the conspiracies you saw me talk
> about which convinced you that I earned such a title.
>
> Robert Harris
Well - DO you believe there was a conspiracy? Yes!
Are you a strong advocate for the fact that there was a conspiracy?
Yes!
Do you expend much energy debunking OTHER conspiracy theories which
are inconsistent with yours? No!
You're a conspiracy lover.
That's the term I use. If you don't like it, then feel free to call
yourself something more palatable - I don't care.
Maybe you'd prefer - Mr. Researcher Extraordinaire and Champion of
Truth & Justice.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Robert Harris
<e514964c-5fca-4e92...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
davidemerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 13, 12:47?pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > David, why did you just call me a "conspiracy lover"?
> >
> > Exactly how many conspiracies do you think I love?
> >
> > Other than the JFK case, please name the conspiracies you saw me talk
> > about which convinced you that I earned such a title.
> >
> > Robert Harris
>
> Well - DO you believe there was a conspiracy? Yes!
I believe there were many conspiracies - watergate, the holocaust, the
9/11 conspiracy and a thousand others, also carried out by moslem
religious nuts, and a countless lesser conspiracies conducted by various
criminals and thugs. Every one of those, I am sure you agree with.
But I hardly "love" them. I think they are despicable.
>
> Are you a strong advocate for the fact that there was a conspiracy?
> Yes!
Yes, just like you David. Or were you only talking about the JFK case?
>
> Do you expend much energy debunking OTHER conspiracy theories which
> are inconsistent with yours? No!
I have "debunked" numerous conspiracy theories - mostly related to the JFK
case. That includes my Youtube videos on issues like, "the driver did it"
and the Secret Service "standdown".
I have also posted messages and videos supporting the SBT and the apparent
fact that the shot at 312 came from the rear, as well as the apparent fact
that Oswald was guilty of participating in the assassination.
>
> You're a conspiracy lover.
David, you seem to be exploiting the fact that I cannot reply in this
newsgroup, in kind, and with an infinitely more accurate description of
you and your belief system.
Robert Harris