Oswald's arrest report # 63-98155
Walt
of Oswald's arrest report.
Somewhere I've read of the procedure for filing the arrest
report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial questioning it was
determined that there was sufficient cause to formally arrest the
suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect was required to
place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of the form, and
the arrest was given a file number which was entered in the space just
to the right of the "time" space. On Oswald's arrest form that number
was written ...63- 98155. An Id number of 54018 was also recorded on
that form .
The form that Rob linked to was what the DPD called a dummy copy and
it is filled out at the start of the investigation. If there isn't
sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn't completed as
it is seen on page 79 of Curry's book. The dummy copy is only kept
for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown out. It was
simply a legal necessity.
The interesting thing about Oswald's arrest report is his height and
weight ......
In the upper right hand corner there is Oswald's right thumbprint in
the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
Just to the left of the thumb print Oswald's Height and weight are
recorded ... His weight is listed as 131 lbs., and his height is 5
feet, 9 1/4 inches.
The lyin LNer's have always tried to refute Howard Brennan's estimated
age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw behind the wide
open window at the west end of the sixth floor. Brennan said that the
sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in light colored
clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between 165 and 175
pounds.
Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pounds.....
That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimated maximum
weight. FOURTY POUNDS!!!.... Does anybody believe that Brennan could
have mis-judged the weight of the sniper by FOURTY POUNDS?? Of
course there are other items that indicate that Brennan did NOT see
lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end of the sixth
floor, In addition to the vast difference in weight between Oswald and
the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....Brennan
estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", and Oswald was
in his early twenties. Brennan said the sniper was wearing a light
colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that were a shade
lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothes.
Brennan described the rifle as a "high powered rifle" which had a long
metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
clear back to the sniper's hand. When he gave the description of the
sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting he ventured
that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hunting rifle
which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
<WC Shill Mode>
Shame on you, Walt. You should stop supporting the WC with these speculations.
</WC Shill Mode>
aeffects
> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
LMAO!
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
>
>On Nov 9, 8:06=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On page 79 of Jesse Curry's book, "Assassination File" there is a copy
>> >of Oswald's arrest report.
>>
>> >Somewhere I've read of the procedure for filing the arrest
>> >report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial questioning it was
>> >determined that there was sufficient cause to formally arrest the
>> >suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect was required to
>> >place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of the form, and
>> >the arrest was given a file number which was entered in the space just
>> >was written ...63- 98155. =A0 An Id number of 54018 was also recorded on
>> >that form .
>>
>> >The form that Rob linked to was what the DPD called a dummy copy and
>> >sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn't completed as
>> >for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown out. It was
>> >simply a legal necessity.
>>
>> >The interesting thing about Oswald's arrest report is his height and
>> >weight ......
>>
>> >In the upper right hand corner there is Oswald's right thumbprint in
>> >the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
>>
>> >Just to the left of the thumb print Oswald's Height and weight are
>> >feet, 9 1/4 inches.
>>
>> >The lyin LNer's have always tried to refute Howard Brennan's estimated
>> >age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw behind the wide
>> >sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in light colored
>> >clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between 165 and 175
>> >pounds.
>>
>> >Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pounds.....
>> >That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimated maximum
>> >weight. FOURTY POUNDS!!!.... Does anybody believe that Brennan could
>> >have mis-judged the weight of the sniper by FOURTY POUNDS?? Of
>> >course there are other items that indicate that Brennan did NOT see
>> >lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end of the sixth
>> >floor, In addition to the vast difference in weight between Oswald and
>> >the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....Brennan
>> >estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", and Oswald was
>> >in his early twenties. Brennan said the sniper was wearing a light
>> >colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that were a shade
>> >lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothes.
>> >Brennan described the rifle as a "high powered rifle" which had a long
>> >metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
>> >clear back to the sniper's hand. When he gave the description of the
>> >sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting he ventured
>> >that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hunting rifle
>> >which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
>>
>> <WC Shill Mode>
>lations.
>> </WC Shill Mode>
>
>LMAO!
The difference in the clothing is the most dramatic point - I'm not impressed
with a difference of 40 odd pounds in weight... In Judo, where weight has a
great deal of impact, it's surprisingly hard sometimes to get within 30 or 40
pounds of someone's weight... but the clothing is an issue that's downright
impossible to get around.
Walt
> In article <e56b494d-c4bd-47e2-9b72-1a968d82e...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
That depends on the frame of the man.... The difference between 180
and 220 (40 lbs) on a 6' 2" man may not be readily apparent. A fat 180
pound 6' 2" man may appear to be about the same weight as 220 pound
lean and fit man. But 40 pounds on a 5' 9" inche man is a HUGE
difference. Not many people would mis-estimate a 131 pound,
5 feet 9-1/4 inch man as 165 to 175 pounds.... but I'll grant you
that weight estimates are a little ambiguous. And as you pointed out
even a colorblind person can tell the difference between a light color
like khaki or dingy white and dark reddish brown.
I just wanted to keep rubbin the LNer's nose in the FACTS.....
.. but the clothing is an issue that's downright
> impossible to get around.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...>> In article <e56b494d-c4bd-47e2-9b72-1a968d82e...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> aeffects says...
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 8:06=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >On page 79 of Jesse Curry's book, "Assassination File" there is a cop=
>y
>> >> >of Oswald's arrest report.
>>
>> >> >Somewhere I've read of the procedure for filing the arrest
>> >> >report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial questioning it was
>> >> >determined that there was sufficient cause to formally arrest the
>> >> >suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect was required to
>> >> >place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of the form, and
>t
>> >> >to the right of the "time" space. =3DA0On Oswald's arrest form that n=
>umber
>> >> >was written ...63- 98155. =3DA0 An Id number of 54018 was also record=
>ed on
>> >> >that form .
>>
>> >> >The form that Rob linked to was what the DPD called a dummy copy and
>'t
>> >> >sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn't completed as
>ept
>> >> >for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown out. It was
>> >> >simply a legal necessity.
>>
>> >> >The interesting thing about Oswald's arrest report is his height and
>> >> >weight ......
>>
>> >> >In the upper right hand corner there is Oswald's right thumbprint in
>> >> >the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
>>
>> >> >Just to the left of the thumb print Oswald's Height and weight are
> 5
>> >> >feet, 9 1/4 inches.
>>
>d
>> >> >age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw behind the wid=
>e
>> >> >open window at the west end of the sixth floor. =3DA0Brennan said tha=
>t the
>> >> >sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in light colored
>> >> >clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between 165 and 175
>> >> >pounds.
>>
>> >> >Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pounds.....
>> >> >That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimated maximum
>> >> >weight. FOURTY POUNDS!!!.... Does anybody believe that Brennan could
>> >> >course there are other items that indicate that Brennan did NOT see
>> >> >lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end of the sixth
>d
>> >> >the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....Brennan
>> >> >estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", and Oswald was
>> >> >in his early twenties. Brennan said the sniper was wearing a light
>> >> >colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that were a shade
>> >> >lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothes.
>g
>> >> >metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
>he
>> >> >sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting he venture=
>d
>> >> >that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hunting rifle
>> >> >which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
>>
>> >> <WC Shill Mode>
>specu=3D
>> >lations.
>> >> </WC Shill Mode>
>>
>> >LMAO!
>>
>> The difference in the clothing is the most dramatic point - I'm not
>> impressed with a difference of 40 odd pounds in weight... In Judo, where
>> weight has a great deal of impact, it's surprisingly hard sometimes to
>> get within 30 or 40 pounds of someone's weight.
>
>That depends on the frame of the man....
Agreed. I fight heavyweight.
I'm rarely 40 pounds off when I guess the weight of a lightweight. :)
But this argument doesn't affect me as strongly as the clothing color issue.
Even colorblind people know the difference between light colors and dark colors,
so this is a more powerful argument in my opinion.
Walt - you're dead wrong. (Just wanted to make Curt & Rob jump for joy...)
>The difference between 180
>and 220 (40 lbs) on a 6' 2" man may not be readily apparent.
Also, in Judo - we are as a general rule in very fit shape - and muscle can pack
on more weight than flab. As a general rule in Judo, it's common to under
estimate what someone weighs...
>A fat 180
>pound 6' 2" man may appear to be about the same weight as 220 pound
>lean and fit man.
Bingo.
>But 40 pounds on a 5' 9" inche man is a HUGE
>difference. Not many people would mis-estimate a 131 pound,
> 5 feet 9-1/4 inch man as 165 to 175 pounds....
Yes... I'll grant you this. (I hear Curt & Rob groaning...)
>but I'll grant you
>that weight estimates are a little ambiguous. And as you pointed out
>even a colorblind person can tell the difference between a light color
>like khaki or dingy white and dark reddish brown.
>
>I just wanted to keep rubbin the LNer's nose in the FACTS.....
Tis the best way to pass the information to a new generation - keep it fresh and
in everyone's face.
Bud
The fact is that the prosector who conducted Oswald`s autopsy,
making a conscious effort to estimate Oz`s weight (something Brennan
never said he gave a thought to when he saw him) failed to nail
Oswald`s weight also. If a person trying to guess his weight could be
wrong, why couldn`t a person not trying to guess his weight be more
wrong?
Bud
> In article <e56b494d-c4bd-47e2-9b72-1a968d82e...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
<snicker> Oz takes off his shirt and stumps kooks for decades.
Walt
Snicker.... You've been tryin that BS for years.... But th witnrsses
said it was a light color shirt with a collar ( "open at the collar" )
with a button front.....AND Howard Brennan specifically said the
snipers trousers were a shade lighter than the dingy white shirt.
Bud
T-shirts have collars, idiot. It`s a matter of impressions. From a
distance, Oz`s t-shirt might give the impression it was a regular
shirt. Jean Hill was much closer to the limo than any of these
witnesses were to Oz, and she mistook something in the limo as a dog.
The mind works that way (well, yours stopped working years ago).
> with a button front.....
<snicker> You think they saw buttons and button holes?
>AND Howard Brennan specifically said the
> snipers trousers were a shade lighter than the dingy white shirt.
Ah, you think a witness must nail all the particulars. Theres your
problem there.
Walt
No Dud.....It's YOUR problem..... Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland,
Ronald Fisher, and Robert Edwards, all saw the man on the sixth floor
who was wearing the light colored SPORT SHIRT.
Howard Brennan was considered to be a very credible witness by the
Warren Commission. ( and he was) I know that you'd like to discredit
his observations which he wrote down just an hour after the shooting,
but you're stuck with his description of the gunman. We both know
that he was NOT describing Oswald when he said the man with the high
powered (hunting) rifle was wearing a light colored shirt and
trousers, while Oswald was wearing DARK colored shirt and trousers,
Brennan also described the sniper with the 30-30 Winchester as being
in his eary thirties, while Oswald was in his early twenties, and he
said the sniper weighed as much as 175 pounds while Oswald only
weighed 131 pounds according to his arrest report.
It's most fortunate that Howard brennan was a excellent witness,
because he gave specific details that exonerates Oswald as the sniper,
and he makes a liar out of you.
>
>
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "It's most fortunate that Howard brennan [sic] was a [sic] excellent witness..." <<<
LOL. Even though Walt The Kook thinks that Brennan couldn't tell
"east" from "west".
Please note how Walt thinks Brennan is an "excellent witness" only
when it serves Walt's "Anybody But Oswald" needs.
But this very same "excellent witness" is the same guy who at a later
date positively IDed Oswald as the 6th-Floor sniper.
So, when it comes to Brennan's positive IDing of Oswald, I guess
Brennan goes back into the "unreliable" and "crappy witness" drawers
once again.
Right, Walt-Kook?
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com>,
Walt is reading "funny books" to make his points. Isn't this what he
says all the time? I have the same copy (JC's book) and it still says
1:40PM as the time of the report. We know LHO wasn't arrested until
1:51PM so maybe you want to tell us why it was started 11 minutes
BEFORE the arrest when they wouldn't have known his name.
Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
made a "mistake", what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
since you weighed in.
Bud
Not all four of those witneses said a sports shirt, did they, liar?
And how can witnesses who can`t make a facial identification be
trusted to make clothing identifications? Generally you look at
people, not their clothes. And once you throw in Fisher and Edwards,
you have two witnesses who gave ages close to Oz`s, don`t you idiot?
> Howard Brennan was considered to be a very credible witness by the
> Warren Commission. ( and he was)
Yah, he was, He said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Very credible.
> I know that you'd like to discredit
> his observations which he wrote down just an hour after the shooting,
> but you're stuck with his description of the gunman.
And you are stuck with Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy.
This trumps any discrepancies in his description. After he said Oswald
was the man he saw, the only thing left to say is that his description
he gave could have been better. If, as you seem to believe, anyone
should give an accurate description, how do you account for the wide
margin of estimates amongst the witnesses on age?
> We both know
> that he was NOT describing Oswald when he said the man with the high
> powered (hunting) rifle was wearing a light colored shirt and
> trousers, while Oswald was wearing DARK colored shirt and trousers,
You say he was wearing a dark shirt, but you can`t establish that as
fact. There are three witnesses to Oswald wearing a light colored top.
> Brennan also described the sniper with the 30-30 Winchester as being
> in his eary thirties, while Oswald was in his early twenties, and he
> said the sniper weighed as much as 175 pounds while Oswald only
> weighed 131 pounds according to his arrest report.
But he did say slender (twice in his affidavit), making his
description of Oz`s build dead on accurate.
> It's most fortunate that Howard brennan was a excellent witness,
> because he gave specific details that exonerates Oswald as the sniper,
> and he makes a liar out of you.
You make an idiot out of yourself. You haven`t the slightest idea
how well witnesses generally do describing the perpetrators of crimes
they see committed. Without such knowledge, your opinions are
worthless.
Walt
Why do you lie ..... only a moron or a liar, would try to clain a NECK
BAND on a T shirt is a "collar"...
It`s a matter of impressions. From a
> > > distance, Oz`s t-shirt might give the impression it was a regular
> > > shirt. Jean Hill was much closer to the limo than any of these
> > > witnesses were to Oz, and she mistook something in the limo as a dog.
> > > The mind works that way (well, yours stopped working years ago).
>
> > > > with a button front.....
>
> > > <snicker> You think they saw buttons and button holes?
>
> > > >AND Howard Brennan specifically said the
> > > > snipers trousers were a shade lighter than the dingy white shirt.
>
> > > Ah, you think a witness must nail all the particulars. Theres your
> > > problem there.
>
> > No Dud.....It's YOUR problem..... Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowland,
> > Ronald Fisher, and Robert Edwards, all saw the man on the sixth floor
> > who was wearing the light colored SPORT SHIRT.
>
> Not all four of those witneses said a sports shirt, did they, liar?
> And how can witnesses who can`t make a facial identification be
> trusted to make clothing identifications? Generally you look at
> people, not their clothes. And once you throw in Fisher and Edwards,
> you have two witnesses who gave ages close to Oz`s, don`t you idiot?
>
> > Howard Brennan was considered to be a very credible witness by the
> > Warren Commission. ( and he was)
>
> Yah, he was, He said he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy. Very credible.
Wrong Dud....why do you lie, It's been pointed out to you many, many,
times that when Brennan went to view the line up just a few hours
after the shooting he told them Oswald was NOT the sniper he's seen
dressed in the light colored clothing. That's EXACTLY what he told
them when the cops tried to coerce him into identifing Oswald. The
cops were twisting his arm to put the finger on Oswald but he flattly
refused to ID oswald and told them thao Oswald was NOT the sniper he'd
seen..... When the cops pressured him and asked how he could be so
sure that Oswald was not the sniper he told them that Oswald was
DRESSED DIFFERENTLY than the sniper he'd seen.
Brennan is on record from just an hour after the shooting,saying that
that the sniper was dressed in light colored clothing, so It's
immaterial what words the slimey lawyers of the Warren Commission were
able to put in his mouth.
No matter how hard you twist and dance.... You can't negate the
evidance.
Walt
> >>> "It's most fortunate that Howard brennan [sic] was a [sic] excellent witness..." <<<
>
> LOL. Even though Walt The Kook thinks that Brennan couldn't tell
> "east" from "west".
>
> Please note how Walt thinks Brennan is an "excellent witness" only
> when it serves Walt's "Anybody But Oswald" needs.
Howard Brennan saw Oswald gunned down in cold blood while he was in
the custody of the VERY SAME people who had tried to force Brennan to
identify Oswald as the man he'd seen with a hunting rifle on the
sixth
floor of the TSBD just a few hours earlier. The Dallas cops had
tried
to twist Brennan's arm and coerce him into saying that Oswald was the
man he's seen when Brennan KNEW that Oswald was NOT the man. Then
just
36 hours later he saw Oswald murdered while handcuffedto the very
cops
who Brennan knew were railroading Oswald.
Brennan wasn't stupid....He had been "warned" ( threatened) by the
cops,
that he could be putting his whole family in jeopardy by refusing to
identify Oswald as the sniper. By the time he appeared before the
Warren Commission he was a paranoid wreck who still clung to the
belief in justice, he hoped that the Warren Commission was a
legitimate investigation where he could speak freely and
truthfully..... He was wrong, on both counts. The WC was NOT a
legtimate investigatory body, and he could NOT speak freely. He was
guided in his testimony by slimey silver tongued lawyers, who tricked
him into testiyfing to lies they had made up.
Walt
wrote:
You stupid son-of-a-bitch.... I've never denied that the time on the
arrest record sheet is 1:40. In fact if you scroll back you'll find
that I said you were correct that the time entered on that dummy sheet
was 1:40 pm. The point is ...it was simply an errorby Fritz and you
want to blow it up into some bizarre nutty conspiracy theory about
Fritz starting to fill out the arrest report BEFORE Oswald was
arrested. That Idea has to have originated in a badly warped
brain...
I think you know now that it's a real screwball idea and you're
embarrassed for offering it....But then again...maybe you really are
insane.
We know LHO wasn't arrested until
> 1:51PM so maybe you want to tell us why it was started 11 minutes
> BEFORE the arrest when they wouldn't have known his name.
>
> Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
> made a "mistake", what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
> since you weighed in.- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Are you any smarter now than the last time I linked to clothing
manufacturers calling the opening at the neck on a t-shirt a "collar".
Anyone can go to Google Images, type "t-shirt, collar" and see dozens
of examples. Here is one of many...
http://www.germes-online.com/direct/dbimage/50006336/Round_Collar_T_shirt_With_Short__Sleeve.jpg
This has what to do with what I said? You said the Warren
Commission saw him as a credible witness. That is who he told he saw
Oswald shoot Kennedy.
> That's EXACTLY what he told
> them when the cops tried to coerce him into identifing Oswald. The
> cops were twisting his arm to put the finger on Oswald but he flattly
> refused to ID oswald and told them thao Oswald was NOT the sniper he'd
> seen.....
As usual you lie, he told them that Oswald most resembled the man he
saw, not that he wasn`t the sniper he saw. The police, knowing that he
was not telling the truth, and that he could identify Oswald as the
man, did pressure him to do the right thing and be honest. Later,
Brennan admitted exactly what the cops knew, that he could have made
an identification.
>When the cops pressured him and asked how he could be so
> sure that Oswald was not the sniper he told them that Oswald was
> DRESSED DIFFERENTLY than the sniper he'd seen.
Why is that surprising? Many feel Oswald changed clothes between
when Brennan saw him shoot Kennedy and Oswald`s arrest.
> Brennan is on record from just an hour after the shooting,saying that
> that the sniper was dressed in light colored clothing, so It's
> immaterial what words the slimey lawyers of the Warren Commission were
> able to put in his mouth.
As I said, Oswald takes off his shirt, and baffles kooks for
decades.
> No matter how hard you twist and dance.... You can't negate the
> evidance.
Yah. The evidence is that this witness said he saw Oswald shoot
Kennedy.
> > > I know that you'd like to discredit
Walt
That may or may not be true.... But isn't that the same as saying that
Oswald was NOT the sniper....He was merely the ONLY man in the line up
that was remotely close to what the sniper looked like?
A rational person would understand that Brennan said that Oswald was
NOT the sniper but he was the only man in the lineup who somewhat
resembled the sniper. Are you related to Rob Caprio?
The police, knowing that he
> was not telling the truth, and that he could identify Oswald as the
> man, did pressure him to do the right thing and be honest. Later,
> Brennan admitted exactly what the cops knew, that he could have made
> an identification.
>
> >When the cops pressured him and asked how he could be so
> > sure that Oswald was not the sniper he told them that Oswald was
> > DRESSED DIFFERENTLY than the sniper he'd seen.
>
> Why is that surprising? Many feel Oswald changed clothes between
> when Brennan saw him shoot Kennedy and Oswald`s arrest.
Good point.... Oswald did change his clothes but the clothes he
removed were quite similar to the fresh clothes he put on....He
removed DARK colored Clothes and he put on DARK colored clothes.
Brennan KNEW KNEW that the sniper was wearing light colored clothes.
There was NO Light colored shirt and trousers found in Oswald's room.
There are evidence photos of the clothes that were found in Oswald's
room...There are NO light colored shirt and trousers. Furthermore
Oswald told the cops he put the dirty clothes in a drawer in his
dresser..... When the cops searched his room they found a reddish
brown colored shirt and dark gray trouseres in the drawer just as
Oswald had told them.
>
> > Brennan is on record from just an hour after the shooting,saying that
> > that the sniper was dressed in light colored clothing, so It's
> > immaterial what words the slimey lawyers of the Warren Commission were
> > able to put in his mouth.
>
> As I said, Oswald takes off his shirt, and baffles kooks for
> decades.
>
> > No matter how hard you twist and dance.... You can't negate the
> > evidance.
>
> Yah. The evidence is that this witness said he saw Oswald shoot
> Kennedy.
That's only the view of a person with his head in his ass...
>
>
>
> > > > I know that you'd like to discredit
> > > > his observations which he wrote down just an hour after the shooting,
> > > > but you're stuck with his description of the gunman.
>
> > > And you are stuck with Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy.
> > > This trumps any discrepancies in his description. After he said Oswald
> > > was the man he saw, the only thing left to say is that his description
> > > he gave could have been better. If, as you seem to believe, anyone
> > > should give an accurate description, how do you account for the wide
> > > margin of estimates amongst the witnesses on age?
>
> > > > We both know
> > > > that he was NOT describing Oswald when he said the man with the high
> > > > powered (hunting) rifle was wearing a light colored shirt and
> > > > trousers, while Oswald was
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>
>On 10 Nov, 19:20, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 7:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 10 Nov, 14:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Nov 10, 8:46 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On 10 Nov, 05:05, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On Nov 9, 11:57 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On 9 Nov, 18:02, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > On Nov 9, 2:04 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>>
>.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > > > > > > aeffects says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > >On Nov 9, 8:06=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>=
> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000=
>prx.googlegroups.=3D
>> > > > > > > > >com>,
>> > > > > > > > >> Walt says...
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >On page 79 of Jesse Curry's book, "Assassination File" =
>there is a copy
>> > > > > > > > >> >of Oswald's arrest report.
>>
>est
>> > > > > > > > >> >report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial quest=
>ioning it was
>> > > > > > > > >> >determined that there was sufficient cause to formally =
>arrest the
>> > > > > > > > >> >suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect w=
>as required to
>> > > > > > > > >> >place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of=
> the form, and
>> > > > > > > > >> >the arrest was given a file number which was entered in=
> the space just
>> > > > > > > > >> >to the right of the "time" space. =3DA0On Oswald's arre=
>st form that number
>> > > > > > > > >> >was written ...63- 98155. =3DA0 An Id number of 54018 w=
>as also recorded on
>> > > > > > > > >> >that form .
>>
>ummy copy and
>> > > > > > > > >> >it is filled out at the start of the investigation. =3D=
>A0If there isn't
>> > > > > > > > >> >sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn'=
>t completed as
>> > > > > > > > >> >it is seen on page 79 of Curry's book. =3DA0 The dummy =
>copy is only kept
>> > > > > > > > >> >for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown o=
>ut. It was
>> > > > > > > > >> >simply a legal necessity.
>>
>is height and
>> > > > > > > > >> >weight ......
>>
>thumbprint in
>> > > > > > > > >> >the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
>>
> weight are
>> > > > > > > > >> >recorded ... His weight is listed as 131 lbs., and his =
>> > > > > > > > >> >feet, 9 1/4 inches.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >The lyin LNer's have always tried to refute Howard Bren=
>nan's estimated
>> > > > > > > > >> >age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw =
>behind the wide
>> > > > > > > > >> >open window at the west end of the sixth floor. =3DA0Br=
>ennan said that the
>> > > > > > > > >> >sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in ligh=
>t colored
>> > > > > > > > >> >clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between=
> 165 and 175
>> > > > > > > > >> >pounds.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> >Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pou=
>nds.....
>> > > > > > > > >> >That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimate=
>d maximum
>> > > > > > > > >> >weight. FOURTY POUNDS!!!.... Does anybody believe that =
>Brennan could
>> > > > > > > > >> >have mis-judged the weight of the sniper by FOURTY POUN=
>DS?? =A0Of
>> > > > > > > > >> >course there are other items that indicate that Brennan=
> did NOT see
>> > > > > > > > >> >lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end=
> of the sixth
>> > > > > > > > >> >floor, In addition to the vast difference in weight bet=
>ween Oswald and
>> > > > > > > > >> >the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....=
>Brennan
>> > > > > > > > >> >estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", =
>and Oswald was
>> > > > > > > > >> >in his early twenties. Brennan said the sniper was wear=
>ing a light
>> > > > > > > > >> >colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that=
> were a shade
>> > > > > > > > >> >lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored=
> clothes.
>> > > > > > > > >> >Brennan described the rifle as a "high powered rifle" w=
>hich had a long
>> > > > > > > > >> >metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel fr=
>om the muzzle
>> > > > > > > > >> >clear back to the sniper's hand. =A0When he gave the de=
>scription of the
>> > > > > > > > >> >sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shoot=
>ing he ventured
>> > > > > > > > >> >that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hu=
>nting rifle
>> > > > > > > > >> >which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
>>
>> > > > > > > > >> <WC Shill Mode>
>WC with these specu=3D
>> > > > > > > > >lations.
>> > > > > > > > >> </WC Shill Mode>
>>
>> > > > > > > > >LMAO!
>>
> I'm not impressed
>> > > > > > > > with a difference of 40 odd pounds in weight... In Judo, wh=
>ere weight has a
>> > > > > > > > great deal of impact, it's surprisingly hard sometimes to g=
>et within 30 or 40
>that's downright
>> > > > > > > > impossible to get around.
>>
>ades.
>>
>> > > > > > Snicker.... You've been tryin that BS for years.... But th witn=
>rsses
>> > > > > > said it was a light color shirt with a collar ( "open at the co=
>llar" )
>>
>> > > > > =A0 T-shirts have collars, idiot.
>>
>> > Why do you lie ..... only a moron or a liar, would try to clain a NECK
>> > BAND on a T shirt is a "collar"...
>>
>> manufacturers calling the opening at the neck on a t-shirt a "collar".
>> Anyone can go to Google Images, type "t-shirt, collar" and see dozens
>> of examples. Here is one of many...
>>
>lar_T_s...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > =A0It`s a matter of impressions. From a
>>
>> > > > > distance, Oz`s t-shirt might give the impression it was a regular
>> > > > > shirt. Jean Hill was much closer to the limo than any of these
>dog.
>> > > > > The mind works that way (well, yours stopped working years ago).
>>
>> > > > > > with a button front.....
>>
>>
>> > > > > >AND Howard Brennan specifically said the
>t.
>>
>> > > > > =A0 Ah, you think a witness must nail all the particulars. Theres=
> your
>> > > > > problem there.
>>
>> > > > No Dud.....It's YOUR problem..... =A0 Howard Brennan, Arnold Rowlan=
>d,
>> > > > Ronald Fisher, and Robert Edwards, all saw the man on the sixth flo=
>or
>> > > > who was wearing the light colored SPORT SHIRT.
>>
>r?
>> > > And how can witnesses who can`t make a facial identification be
>> > > trusted to make clothing identifications? Generally you look at
>> > > people, not their clothes. And once you throw in Fisher and Edwards,
>> > > you have two witnesses who gave ages close to Oz`s, don`t you idiot?
>>
>> > > > Howard Brennan was considered to be a very credible witness by the
>> > > > Warren Commission. ( and he was)
>>
>>
>> > Wrong Dud....why do you lie, It's been pointed out to you many, many,
>> > times that when Brennan went to view the line up just a few hours
>> > after the shooting he told them Oswald was NOT the sniper he's seen
>> > dressed in the light colored clothing.
>>
>> Commission saw him as a credible witness. That is who he told he saw
>> Oswald shoot Kennedy.
>>
>> > them when the cops tried to coerce him into identifing Oswald. =A0 The
>> > cops were twisting his arm to put the finger on Oswald but he flattly
>> > refused to ID oswald and told them thao Oswald was NOT the sniper he'd
>> > seen.....
>>
>> saw, not that he wasn`t the sniper he saw.
>
> As usual you lie, he told them that Oswald most resembled the man he
>saw, not that he wasn`t the sniper he saw.
>
>That may or may not be true.... But isn't that the same as saying that
>Oswald was NOT the sniper....He was merely the ONLY man in the line up
>that was remotely close to what the sniper looked like?
>A rational person would understand that Brennan said that Oswald was
>NOT the sniper but he was the only man in the lineup who somewhat
>resembled the sniper. Are you related to Rob Caprio?
>
>
> The police, knowing that he
>> was not telling the truth, and that he could identify Oswald as the
>> man, did pressure him to do the right thing and be honest. Later,
>> Brennan admitted exactly what the cops knew, that he could have made
>> an identification.
>>
>> >When the cops pressured him and asked how he could be so
>> > sure that Oswald was not the sniper he told them that Oswald was
>> > DRESSED DIFFERENTLY than the sniper he'd seen.
>>
>> when Brennan saw him shoot Kennedy and Oswald`s arrest.
>
>Good point.... Oswald did change his clothes but the clothes he
>removed were quite similar to the fresh clothes he put on....He
>removed DARK colored Clothes and he put on DARK colored clothes.
>Brennan KNEW KNEW that the sniper was wearing light colored clothes.
>There was NO Light colored shirt and trousers found in Oswald's room.
>There are evidence photos of the clothes that were found in Oswald's
>room...There are NO light colored shirt and trousers. Furthermore
>Oswald told the cops he put the dirty clothes in a drawer in his
>dresser..... When the cops searched his room they found a reddish
>brown colored shirt and dark gray trouseres in the drawer just as
>Oswald had told them.
The nightmare for LNT'ers just keeps going, doesn't it?
>> > Brennan is on record from just an hour after the shooting,saying that
>> > that the sniper was dressed in light colored clothing, so It's
>> > immaterial what words the slimey lawyers of the Warren Commission were
>> > able to put in his mouth.
>>
>> =A0 As I said, Oswald takes off his shirt, and baffles kooks for
>> decades.
>>
>> > No matter how hard you twist and dance.... =A0You can't negate the
>> > evidance.
>>
>> =A0 Yah. The evidence is that this witness said he saw Oswald shoot
>> Kennedy.
>
>That's only the view of a person with his head in his ass...
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > > I know that you'd like to discredit
>> > > > his observations which he wrote down just an hour after the shootin=
>g,
>> > > > but you're stuck with his description of the gunman.
>>
>> > > =A0 And you are stuck with Brennan saying he saw Oswald shoot Kennedy=
>.
>> > > This trumps any discrepancies in his description. After he said Oswal=
>d
>> > > was the man he saw, the only thing left to say is that his descriptio=
>n
>> > > he gave could have been better. If, as you seem to believe, anyone
>> > > should give an accurate description, how do you account for the wide
>> > > margin of estimates amongst the witnesses on age?
>>
>> > > > We both know
>> > > > that he was NOT describing Oswald when he said the man with the hig=
>h
>> > > > powered (hunting) rifle was wearing a light colored shirt and
>> > > > trousers, while Oswald was
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read more =BB- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 9, 8:06=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On page 79 of Jesse Curry's book, "Assassination File" there is a copy
>> >of Oswald's arrest report.
>>
>> >Somewhere I've read of the procedure for filing the arrest
>> >report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial questioning it was
>> >determined that there was sufficient cause to formally arrest the
>> >suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect was required to
>> >place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of the form, and
>> >the arrest was given a file number which was entered in the space just
>> >was written ...63- 98155. =A0 An Id number of 54018 was also recorded on
>> >that form .
>>
>> >The form that Rob linked to was what the DPD called a dummy copy and
>> >sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn't completed as
>> >for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown out. It was
>> >simply a legal necessity.
>>
>> >The interesting thing about Oswald's arrest report is his height and
>> >weight ......
>>
>> >In the upper right hand corner there is Oswald's right thumbprint in
>> >the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
>>
>> >Just to the left of the thumb print Oswald's Height and weight are
>> >feet, 9 1/4 inches.
>>
>> >The lyin LNer's have always tried to refute Howard Brennan's estimated
>> >age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw behind the wide
>> >sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in light colored
>> >clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between 165 and 175
>> >pounds.
>>
>> >Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pounds.....
>> >That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimated maximum
>ld
>> >have mis-judged the weight of the sniper by FOURTY POUNDS?? =A0 Of
>> >course there are other items that indicate that Brennan did NOT see
>> >lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end of the sixth
>> >floor, In addition to the vast difference in weight between Oswald and
>> >the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....Brennan
>> >estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", and Oswald was
>> >colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that were a shade
>> >lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothes.
>> >Brennan described the rifle as a "high powered rifle" which had a long
>> >metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
>> >sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting he ventured
>> >that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hunting rifle
>> >which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
>>
>> <WC Shill Mode>
>> Shame on you, Walt. You should stop supporting the WC with these
>> speculations.
>> </WC Shill Mode>
>
>Walt is reading "funny books" to make his points. Isn't this what he
>says all the time? I have the same copy (JC's book) and it still says
>1:40PM as the time of the report. We know LHO wasn't arrested until
>1:51PM so maybe you want to tell us why it was started 11 minutes
>BEFORE the arrest when they wouldn't have known his name.
Clearly a time machine was involved. There must have been a nearby time nexus
that the DPD used regularly.
>Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
>made a "mistake",
Yeah... Walt doesn't believe the obvious time machine explanation... it's a
conspiracy that was began in the year 2179 by members of the Skull & Bones. I
suspect that they are slowly erasing the historical record of their complete
domination of Humankind.
>what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
>since you weighed in.
Yep... I "weighed in" alright... I posted directly underneath the information
*I* thought was interesting.
Of course, this isn't the first post where I've commented on Brennan's
description of the shooter.
But since you asked, I went ahead and explained the time error. (Come on,
Walt... you *know* it's logical!)
muc...@gmail.com
Reminds me of Ben and his *Lady in Yellow Pants* theory. Perhaps
stupidity really is contagious.
Bud
Yah, how would you know? You can`t tell the truth when you see it.
> But isn't that the same as saying that
> >Oswald was NOT the sniper....
No, idiot, it`s not. Brennan saying Oswald resembles the man he saw
is not the same as him saying he was not the man Brennan saw.
>He was merely the ONLY man in the line up
> >that was remotely close to what the sniper looked like?
> >A rational person would understand
Do you know one. A rational person would understand that saying that
Oswald resembled the man he saw shoot Kennedy was as far as he was
willing to go at that point in time. That doesn`t mean he could not
identify Oswald as the man he saw, only that he was unwilling to do
so. This is what he explained later. Not the extraordinary motivations
you imagine, just the ordinary ones he gave.
> that Brennan said that Oswald was
> >NOT the sniper but he was the only man in the lineup who somewhat
> >resembled the sniper. Are you related to Rob Caprio?
> >
> >
> > The police, knowing that he
> >> was not telling the truth, and that he could identify Oswald as the
> >> man, did pressure him to do the right thing and be honest. Later,
> >> Brennan admitted exactly what the cops knew, that he could have made
> >> an identification.
> >>
> >> >When the cops pressured him and asked how he could be so
> >> > sure that Oswald was not the sniper he told them that Oswald was
> >> > DRESSED DIFFERENTLY than the sniper he'd seen.
> >>
> >> =A0 =A0Why is that surprising? Many feel Oswald changed clothes between
> >> when Brennan saw him shoot Kennedy and Oswald`s arrest.
> >
> >Good point.... Oswald did change his clothes
That is unestablished.
> but the clothes he
> >removed were quite similar to the fresh clothes he put on....He
> >removed DARK colored Clothes and he put on DARK colored clothes.
> >Brennan KNEW KNEW that the sniper was wearing light colored clothes.
Brennan didn`t want to make an identification, so he used the
clothing to make an excuse.
> >There was NO Light colored shirt and trousers found in Oswald's room.
> >There are evidence photos of the clothes that were found in Oswald's
> >room...There are NO light colored shirt and trousers. Furthermore
> >Oswald told the cops
That he didn`t own a rifle. That he ate lunch with Norman. That he
was told by Shelley he could go home.
> he put the dirty clothes in a drawer in his
> >dresser..... When the cops searched his room they found a reddish
> >brown colored shirt and dark gray trouseres in the drawer just as
> >Oswald had told them.
>
>
> The nightmare for LNT'ers just keeps going, doesn't it?
How can you stop CT stupidity?
Walt
Dud.....You are dispicable. Have you no shame? Howard Brennan was
just a "Joe Average" citizen who got caught up in a plot hatched by
immoral, dispicable characters (like yourself) who had no compunction
about blaming their foul deeds on some poor hapless kid. Howard
Brennan didn't have to go to the police and tell them he'd seen the
sniper in the TSBD. He did it without thinking about an consequences
of his action. He was filmed and recorded, telling the cops what he's
seen, which made him a witness that could not be ignored. The FACT
that he went immediately to the police to help them apprehend the
sniper speaks volumnes about his character.....But a low life son-of-
bitch like you wouldn't know about things like honesty and integrity,
so you besmirch his character.
He was being honest with the police and told them that Oswald was the
only man in the line up that somewhat resembled the sniper who
was,dressed in the light colored clothing, and STANDING behind the
wide open window at the west end of the sixth floor.
For you to say that the crooked cops had to pressure Brennan to be
honest, reveals what a stupid, low life, bastard you are.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> In article <23a71eb2-cb66-4ee7-9438-22f50ce40...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Rob wrote:
I have the same copy (JC's book) and it still says1:40PM as the time
of the report. We know LHO wasn't arrested until 1:51PM so maybe you
want to tell us why it was started 11 minutes BEFORE the arrest when
they wouldn't have known his name.
Big Ben chimed:
Clearly a time machine was involved. There must have been a nearby
time nexus that the DPD used regularly.
Oh, Yes!!..... Sorry Rob, You're right..... Fritz knew before Oswald
was arrested that he was going to be arrested in about eleven
minutes. I'd completely forgotten about that time machine ........
>
> Clearly a time machine was involved. There must have been a nearby time nexus
> that the DPD used regularly.
>
> >Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
> >made a "mistake",
>
> Yeah... Walt doesn't believe the obvious time machine explanation... it's a
> conspiracy that was began in the year 2179 by members of the Skull & Bones. I
> suspect that they are slowly erasing the historical record of their complete
> domination of Humankind.
>
> >what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
> >since you weighed in.
>
> Yep... I "weighed in" alright... I posted directly underneath the information
> *I* thought was interesting.
>
> Of course, this isn't the first post where I've commented on Brennan's
> description of the shooter.
>
> But since you asked, I went ahead and explained the time error. (Come on,
> Walt... you *know* it's logical!)- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
How about some proof it was an ERROR by Fritz? Until you or the other
LNers ante up proof it was a mistake it stays suspicious, very
suspicious. Got it?
> I think you know now that it's a real screwball idea and you're
> embarrassed for offering it....But then again...maybe you really are
> insane.
I don't think it is screwball at all moron, I want to know why arrest
report was STARTED 11 minutes BEFORE the suspect was arrested!!! So
would a defense attorney. Forgive me for NOT taking your word but you
have shown yourself to be a liar. Remember these?
Walt never proved that the rifle in CE-133A had "Dual Sling Mounts".
Walt never proved that LHO worked for RFK.
Walt never proved that General Walker called Germany.
Walt never proved Mike Paine gave the DPD a copy of the CE-133A photo
on 11/22/63.
Walt never proved the wallet was found "INSIDE" the owner's car
(allegedly LHO’s).
Walt never proved Michael Paine had same model rifle as LHO (Carcano
40”).
Walt never proved General Walker believed LHO shot at him in 4/63.
Walt never proved that Capt. O A Jones said LHO shot AT General Walker
in 4/63.
Walt never proved LHO received a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved that the bill of lading proved a 40" Carcano was
ordered by LHO.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO shot at General Walker in 4/63.
Walt never proved that LHO ordered a 40” Carcano rifle.
Walt never proved his claim that LHO altered his OWN chin in CE-133A.
Walt never proved his claim that a 6.5mm was fired from a "sabot".
Walt never proved his claim that the CIA was going to "rescue LHO."
Walt never proved there was a clip inside the Carcano when it was
found at the TSBD.
Walt never proved LHO ordered a rifle that was easily traceable so he
could shoot at Gen. Walker with it.
Walt never proved Marcello was a "payroll runner" for RFK.
Walt never proved the casings found at the TSBD (6.5mm ammo) came from
a Marine Corps order for the CIA.
Walt never proved DeMohrenschildt actually owned the 40” Carcano
allegedly ordered from Klein’s.
Walt never proved that the bullet recovered from Walker shooting was
copper-jacketed.
Walt never proved 133A (deMohrenschildt BY photo) came from the SAME
negative as CE-133A.
Walt never proved LHO went to Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
Walt never proved his claim that the DPD showed Weitzman a Mauser on
11/22/63.
Walt never proved that George DeMohrenschildt purchased the money
order used allegedly for the Carcano rifle order.
Walt never proved Marina did in fact take CE-133A (backyard photo),
and it is AUTHENTIC.
Walt never proved Fritz was just sloppy when timing the arrest report
ELEVEN minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested.
Walt never proved the weight listed on the “Bill of lading” was TARE
weight.
Walt never proved the weight of the 40” Carcano is 7.5LBS when the ad
the WC used says 7.0LBS.
robcap...@netscape.com
> In article <23a71eb2-cb66-4ee7-9438-22f50ce40...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Explain it then. Why does Ben resort to this crap? He believes an
arrest report being STARTED (and maybe finished) 11 minutes BEFORE the
suspect is arrested is NO big deal. How about the declarations of
guilt written on it? I mean is this proof of "innocent UNTIL PROVEN
GUILTY" behavior?
> >Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
> >made a "mistake",
>
> Yeah... Walt doesn't believe the obvious time machine explanation... it's a
> conspiracy that was began in the year 2179 by members of the Skull & Bones. I
> suspect that they are slowly erasing the historical record of their complete
> domination of Humankind.
You are showing how dumb you are in terms of this case. Only a pure
moron on the JFK case would find this innocent, or of course a LNer.
> >what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
> >since you weighed in.
>
> Yep... I "weighed in" alright... I posted directly underneath the information
> *I* thought was interesting.
Ben claims he wants the TRUTH of the JFK conspiracy, but an arrest
report dated 11 minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested and using language of
guilt has NO interest for him. Boy, what does interest this guy?
> Of course, this isn't the first post where I've commented on Brennan's
> description of the shooter.
And there may be spiders on the Moon too. That has nothing to do with
the topic at hand - which is the arrest report. Just read the banner
if you get confused.
> But since you asked, I went ahead and explained the time error. (Come on,
> Walt... you *know* it's logical!)
Ben is showing his shill side again, NO real CTer wouldn't find this
at least odd.
robcap...@netscape.com
There is NO way either of you are CTers for this comment. If you know
LHO was a "patsy" and he was framed how can you defend Fritz's
actions? Of course he knew LHO was the patsy. Duh.
Thanks to BOTH of you for showing us your real status. Walt gave
these lies and Ben has been defending them:
Bud
Only a retard would think that the Dallas police was trying to get
Brennan to finger an innocent man for their President`s murder.
Experienced police would have a good idea when a witness was not being
honest with them, and Brennan admitted to just that.
>Howard
> Brennan didn't have to go to the police and tell them he'd seen the
> sniper in the TSBD. He did it without thinking about an consequences
> of his action. He was filmed and recorded, telling the cops what he's
> seen, which made him a witness that could not be ignored. The FACT
> that he went immediately to the police to help them apprehend the
> sniper speaks volumnes about his character.....But a low life son-of-
> bitch like you wouldn't know about things like honesty and integrity,
> so you besmirch his character.
I believe him. You are the one who has him giving false witness
against an innocent man. I accept his explanation for not selecting
Oswald as the man he saw when he could have done so.
> He was being honest with the police and told them that Oswald was the
> only man in the line up that somewhat resembled the sniper who
> was,dressed in the light colored clothing, and STANDING behind the
> wide open window at the west end of the sixth floor.
As he explained later, he recognized Oswald as the man he saw, and
could have honestly selected him, but did not for reasons of his own.
The motivations you imagine and assign to both the police and Brennan
are the inventions of a disturbed mind, nothing more.
> For you to say that the crooked cops had to pressure Brennan to be ...
>
> read more »
Walt
You are sooooo naive!.... I love that line that Jack Martin said to
Garrison in JFK...
> Experienced police would have a good idea when a witness was not being
> honest with them, and Brennan admitted to just that.
>
>
>
> >Howard
> > Brennan didn't have to go to the police and tell them he'd seen the
> > sniper in the TSBD. He did it without thinking about an consequences
> > of his action. He was filmed and recorded, telling the cops what he's
> > seen, which made him a witness that could not be ignored. The
>
Bud
No, you re just retarded. Brennan knew Oswald was the person he saw
shoot Kennedy at the line-up. The cops knew Brennan knew Oswald was
the person he saw shoot Kennedy at the line-up. No need for
extraordinary tales, just a reluctant witness, and justifiably annoyed
police.
Walt
Oh boy are you ever CONFUSED! Kennedy wasn't shot at the line
up......Put a cork in that bottle and go get some sleep.
The cops knew Brennan knew Oswald was the person he saw shoot Kennedy
at the line-up.
Well hell...if the Dallas cops were claivoyant and could read peoples
minds then why even bother with trivial things like line ups and
trials ..... Why didn't they just shoot a criminal as soon as they
read that criminals mind???
No need for extraordinary tales, just a reluctant witness, and
justifiably annoyed police.
Are you sure you're not related to Rob Caprio?
Bud
I trust that people who aren`t idiots will understand the point
made.
> The cops knew Brennan knew Oswald was the person he saw shoot Kennedy
> at the line-up.
>
> Well hell...if the Dallas cops were claivoyant and could read peoples
> minds then why even bother with trivial things like line ups and
> trials ..... Why didn't they just shoot a criminal as soon as they
> read that criminals mind???
Don`t need to read minds. They just weren`t idiots like you are.
They knew that Brennan wasn`t being forthcoming, and they were shown
to be right when Brennan came clean later.
> No need for extraordinary tales, just a reluctant witness, and
> justifiably annoyed police.
>
> Are you sure you're not related to Rob Caprio?
What is so unbelievable, Walt? The retarded tales you concoct need
someone "in the know" to come forward and substantiate them, some cop
saying he was put up to coercing Brennan into selecting Oswald. You
don`t have anything like that, and you never will, because these
scenarios you envision only exist in your retarded mind.
Walt
Well to be candid I'm not sure what "it" is.....but "IT" calls
itself... Bud.
The retarded tales you concoct need someone "in the know" to come
forward and substantiate them, some cop
saying he was put up to coercing Brennan into selecting Oswald.
Nonsense Dud.... It's obvious to a rational person that Brennan was an
honest citizen and it was the cops who were less than honest. Do you
really think that if Brennan hadn't been an honest man he would have
even got involved??
If he had wanted to be evasive as you suggest he could have just
slipped quietly away after the shooting and kept what he'd seen to
himself. You're not the brighest bulb on the tree are ya? Are you
related to Rob?
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Nov 10, 10:04=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <23a71eb2-cb66-4ee7-9438-22f50ce40...@t39g2000prh.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 8:06=3DA0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> >> In article <d6067277-3062-4b8e-9bc9-6fa1a8ae7...@40g2000prx.googlegrou=
>ps.=3D
>> >com>,
>> >> Walt says...
>>
>> >> >On page 79 of Jesse Curry's book, "Assassination File" there is a cop=
>y
>> >> >of Oswald's arrest report.
>>
>> >> >Somewhere I've read of the procedure for filing the arrest
>> >> >report.....That procedure was:.. If after initial questioning it was
>> >> >determined that there was sufficient cause to formally arrest the
>> >> >suspect the arrest report was filled out. The suspect was required to
>> >> >place his right thumbprint on the upper right corner of the form, and
>t
>> >> >to the right of the "time" space. =3DA0On Oswald's arrest form that n=
>umber
>> >> >was written ...63- 98155. =3DA0 An Id number of 54018 was also record=
>ed on
>> >> >that form .
>>
>> >> >The form that Rob linked to was what the DPD called a dummy copy and
>'t
>> >> >sufficient evidence to arrest the suspect the form isn't completed as
>ept
>> >> >for a short period of time (90 days?) and then thrown out. It was
>> >> >simply a legal necessity.
>>
>> >> >The interesting thing about Oswald's arrest report is his height and
>> >> >weight ......
>>
>> >> >In the upper right hand corner there is Oswald's right thumbprint in
>> >> >the space marked "RT. THUMB PRINT"
>>
>> >> >Just to the left of the thumb print Oswald's Height and weight are
> 5
>> >> >feet, 9 1/4 inches.
>>
>d
>> >> >age and weight that he gave for the sniper that he saw behind the wid=
>e
>> >> >open window at the west end of the sixth floor. =3DA0Brennan said tha=
>t the
>> >> >sniper who had a hunting rifle, and was dressed in light colored
>> >> >clothes, was in his early thirties, and weighed between 165 and 175
>> >> >pounds.
>>
>> >> >Oswald's arrest report lists Oswald's weight as 131 pounds.....
>> >> >That's nearly 40 pounds lighter than Brennan's estimated maximum
>nan cou=3D
>> >ld
>> >> >have mis-judged the weight of the sniper by FOURTY POUNDS?? =3DA0 Of
>> >> >course there are other items that indicate that Brennan did NOT see
>> >> >lee Oswald behind that wide open window on the west end of the sixth
>d
>> >> >the sniper there is the age difference of TEN years....Brennan
>> >> >estimated that the sniper was in his "early thirties", and Oswald was
>ht
>> >> >colored shirt possibly a dingy white, and trousers that were a shade
>> >> >lighter than his shirt. Oswald was wearing DARK colored clothes.
>g
>> >> >metal barrel. He said he could see all of the barrel from the muzzle
>f the
>> >> >sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting he venture=
>d
>> >> >that the rifle might have been a 30-30 Winchester, a hunting rifle
>> >> >which in fact does have a long exposed metal barrel.
>>
>> >> <WC Shill Mode>
>> >> Shame on you, Walt. You should stop supporting the WC with these
>> >> speculations.
>> >> </WC Shill Mode>
>>
>> >says all the time? I have the same copy (JC's book) and it still says
>> >1:51PM so maybe you want to tell us why it was started 11 minutes
>> >BEFORE the arrest when they wouldn't have known his name.
>>
>> Clearly a time machine was involved. There must have been a nearby time nexus
>> that the DPD used regularly.
>
>Explain it then.
I just did. It was a time machine that was involved. A nearby time nexus was
frequently used by the DPD.
>Why does Ben resort to this crap? He believes an
>arrest report being STARTED (and maybe finished) 11 minutes BEFORE the
>suspect is arrested is NO big deal.
Untrue. The Time Nexus frequently 'time shifts'... gotta watch out for that.
>How about the declarations of
>guilt written on it? I mean is this proof of "innocent UNTIL PROVEN
>GUILTY" behavior?
>
>> >Walt rides to the defense of the WC on this issue and says Fritz just
>> >made a "mistake",
>>
>> Yeah... Walt doesn't believe the obvious time machine explanation... it's a
>> conspiracy that was began in the year 2179 by members of the Skull & Bones.
>> I suspect that they are slowly erasing the historical record of their
>> complete domination of Humankind.
>
>
>You are showing how dumb you are in terms of this case. Only a pure
>moron on the JFK case would find this innocent, or of course a LNer.
Who said this was "innocent"?
I explained it.
>> >what do you think? And NO interest doesn't cut it
>> >since you weighed in.
>>
>> Yep... I "weighed in" alright... I posted directly underneath the information
>> *I* thought was interesting.
>
>Ben claims he wants the TRUTH of the JFK conspiracy, but an arrest
>report dated 11 minutes BEFORE LHO was arrested and using language of
>guilt has NO interest for him. Boy, what does interest this guy?
I've explained it above. Why can't you read?
>> Of course, this isn't the first post where I've commented on Brennan's
>> description of the shooter.
>
>And there may be spiders on the Moon too. That has nothing to do with
>the topic at hand
Which was, right where I commented, Brennan's description of the assassin.
> - which is the arrest report. Just read the banner
>if you get confused.
>
>
>> But since you asked, I went ahead and explained the time error. (Come on,
>> Walt... you *know* it's logical!)
>
>Ben is showing his shill side again, NO real CTer wouldn't find this
>at least odd.
You don't find a time machine odd? You don't find the incredible luck that the
DPD had in having a nearby time nexus even the least bit odd?
Bud
Of course you don`t, you are an idiot. "it" was the point I made,
the one you ridiculed because you had no honest response to "it". What
is so unbelievable about a reluctant witness, and cops being
frustrated by that reluctance? Why would a person need to concoct an
room full of cops in cohoots when such a simple reasonable explanation
is available?
>but "IT" calls
> itself... Bud.
>
>
> The retarded tales you concoct need someone "in the know" to come
> forward and substantiate them, some cop
> saying he was put up to coercing Brennan into selecting Oswald.
>
> Nonsense Dud....
Yah, who needs substantial support when you have your imagination,
right?
>It's obvious to a rational person that Brennan was an
> honest citizen and it was the cops who were less than honest.
No, Walt, you really can`t support your idiotic ideas this way. You
need substance, not imagination. Brennan said he could have honestly
selected Oswald as the man he saw shoot Kennedy when he saw him in the
line-up. It`s obvious the cops knew he could, and were frustrated by
his reluctance.
> Do you
> really think that if Brennan hadn't been an honest man he would have
> even got involved??
He probably didn`t give it a lot of thought at the time.
> If he had wanted to be evasive as you suggest he could have just
> slipped quietly away after the shooting and kept what he'd seen to
> himself.
I`m sure there were many times he regretted not doing just that. But
it wasn`t like he went there planning to see an assassination. It was
an evolving situation, and a human being will often get caught up in
events, and then have regrets later. At the station, hearing how much
evidence they had on this guy for killing the cop, and hearing about
his ties to commie organizations perhaps could lead to a change of
heart when he had a chance to think things through. People are
sometimes complex, with personal motivations, and straightforward "he
would have done this or that" don`t always apply. We have a witness
who initially made the claim that he could identify the shooter. When
it came time to do so, he hedged. Later, he admitted he could have
made an identification, but did not for reasons of his own. This is
what we have. Retards want to blame everybody else in the room for
this turn of events, because they are idiots who have no problem
saying hundreds or thousands of people were out to get Oswald, instead
of coming to the obvious conclusion that he was just a guilty man.
Luckily, there were no retards like this tapped to conduct the
investigation into this affair.
> You're not the brighest bulb on the tree are ya? Are you
> related to Rob?
Rob is an idiot CTer like yourself.
David Von Pein
I just came across this 11/23/63 FBI report concerning the details of Donald Wayne House, who was picked up by the police as a suspect in President Kennedy's assassination shortly after the shooting:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=120
In that FBI report, it gives the weight of Don House as precisely 131 pounds, which is an interesting coincidence, isn't it? Because that's the exact same weight figure attached to Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprint card being discussed above. Did somebody goof at Dallas P.D. and mix up the two JFK Assassination suspects?
Food for thought anyway.
Related Discussion:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
Ben Holmes
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>Regarding the "131 pounds" topic....
>
> I just came across this 11/23/63 FBI report concerning the details of
> Donald Wayne House, who was picked up by the police as a suspect in
> President Kennedy's assassination
Believers have constantly pounded the point that the DPD had the case
against Oswald in the first 12 hours.
Bud
David Von Pein
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Ben Holmes
Bud
Bud
> Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
>
> https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
David Von Pein
> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
> >
> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
What error? I called it an FBI report.
Bud
Ben Holmes
You've been spanked everytime you've tried to debate me, because I
clearly know the evidence better than you.
John Corbett
respond to everyone of his lies. He fails to appreciate that the intelligent people are
here solely for amusement purposes. We find humor in the blather of people who are
so bad at weighing evidence that they can't figure out a double murder case that was
so obvious the DPD had solved both murders in the first twelve hours and that in 57
years not a scrap of credible evidence has surfaced that anyone other than Oswald
took part in the crime. That doesn't stop them from imagining all sorts of various plots
by a wide assortment of people who they collectively refer to as "they". The nutcases
imagine that "they" were omnipotent and could do anything and everything that was
necessary to carry out their plot and conceal all evidence of it for 57 years. I count all
of five nutcases on this board claiming there was more to the assassination than Oswald
just taking his rifle to work and shooting JFK as he rode by the workplace in a slow moving
open top car. They are all preaching to a very small choir. The pretend that what they are doing
actually matters by imagining there are actually secret lurkers who are being convinced of
their nonsensical theories. It doesn't get any funnier than that. Those of us who know that
Oswald was the assassin have no delusions that anything we do here is going to move the
needle of public opinion one bit. There is a very small audience made even smaller by the
demise of John McAdams and his moderated discussion group. I could walk away from
this hobby altogether and not miss it. This is nothing more than a mild form of amusement.
I do chuckle at this Cuckoo's Nest who actually think what they are doing is the least bit
important. Nobody outside this group gives a shit about anything that is said in this forum
and all these nutty theories will die and be forgotten as soon as those who are propagating
them do.
Bud
> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:12:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> > Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
> >> >
> >> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
> >> FBI, not police. Ben jumped on your error...
> >
> >What error? I called it an FBI report.
> You were too much a coward to respond to my post.
"Believers have constantly pounded the point that the DPD had the case against Oswald in the first 12 hours."
> You've been spanked everytime you've tried to debate me, because I
> clearly know the evidence better than you.
Bud
> On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:48:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:30:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
> > <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:12:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > >> > Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
> > >> >
> > >> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
> > >> FBI, not police. Ben jumped on your error...
> > >
> > >What error? I called it an FBI report.
> > You were too much a coward to respond to my post.
> >
> > You've been spanked everytime you've tried to debate me, because I
> > clearly know the evidence better than you.
> Holmes thinks he actually matters. He thinks the rest of us are somehow required to
> respond to everyone of his lies.
David Von Pein
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-717.html
But you, Ben, decided to change the topic completely by talking about how the DPD had the case against Oswald sewn up after 12 hours----which they did, of course, but that has no bearing at all on the subject I brought up concerning the "131 pounds".
Now, the fact that fellow assassination suspect Donald House is listed in one FBI report as having weighed precisely 131 pounds (the exact same weight given as Lee Oswald's weight in CE630 and CE657-A)....
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0156a.htm
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0167b.htm
....might not mean a darn thing in the long run. Maybe it's just a total coincidence that both of the JFK Assassination suspects who were hauled in by the police on 11/22/63 are listed in various documents as possessing the exact same weight of 131 pounds. I just thought it was a rather interesting "coincidence" when I ran across Page #112 of Warren Commission Document #301 yesterday:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=120
Ben Holmes
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:48:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 17:30:49 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:12:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> >> > Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
>> >> >
>> >> > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
>> >> FBI, not police. Ben jumped on your error...
>> >
>> >What error? I called it an FBI report.
>> You were too much a coward to respond to my post.
>>
>> You've been spanked everytime you've tried to debate me, because I
>> clearly know the evidence better than you.
the end of a post, ignoring every point made, and using it as a
platform to sputter.
I always delete such nonsense. You have to EARN the right for me to
reply to a post.
Ben Holmes
<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:48:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> You were too much a coward to respond to my post.
>
How would anyone know... you SNIPPED IT ALL and refuse to address it.
You're going to have to do better than this, Davy.
David Von Pein
You need to do better than that, Benji.
David Von Pein
> You have to EARN the right for me to reply to a post.
Ben Holmes
Ben Holmes
>On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 8:09:03 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2021 10:04:31 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, April 29, 2021 at 9:48:34 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> >> You were too much a coward to respond to my post.
>> >
>> >Your post ...
>>
>> How would anyone know... you SNIPPED IT ALL and refuse to address it.
>>
>> You're going to have to do better than this, Davy.
>
You're lying again.
Indeed, you've refused to address what I *DID* say.
Chuck Schuyler
Ben Holmes
Run coward... RUN!
Ben Holmes
>On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:30:50 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 8:12:04 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04:03 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>> > > Here's Page 1 of the 11/23/63 FBI report regarding Donald House:
>> > >
>> > > https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10702#relPageId=119
>> > FBI, not police. Ben jumped on your error...
>>
>> What error? I called it an FBI report.
>
> My bad, not careful reading.
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Can you even state what it is?
Ben Holmes
>On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 7:02:32 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 14:36:25 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
>> wrote:
>>>On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 4:15:07 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 12:49:03 -0700 (PDT), David Von Pein
>>>> <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Regarding the "131 pounds" topic....
>>>>>
>>>>> I just came across this 11/23/63 FBI report concerning the details of
>>>>> Donald Wayne House, who was picked up by the police as a suspect in
>>>>> President Kennedy's assassination
>>>> How can this be?
>>>>
>>>> Believers have constantly pounded the point that the DPD had the case
>>>> against Oswald in the first 12 hours.
>>>
>>> Did you hit the link?
>> Coward #1 who refused to address the point.
>
> Pointless if you didn`t hit the link.
Or run away again like the coward you are.