Discussion:
BRENNAN
(too old to reply)
BOZ
2017-04-29 03:16:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
donald willis
2017-04-29 23:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-01 02:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
Which box? SHow me. Do you realize the boxes were moved?
donald willis
2017-05-01 02:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....

dcw
s***@yahoo.com
2017-05-07 02:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."

"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."

One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
claviger
2017-05-07 22:02:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.

lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube

Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
mainframetech
2017-05-08 20:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 02:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
Chris
False. Oswald was able to hit Walker's window. I believe he could have
hit the broad side of a barn.
bigdog
2017-05-10 15:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 03:03:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
He hopes. It's called bluffing.
mainframetech
2017-05-11 16:33:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?

If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-13 15:29:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
mainframetech
2017-05-15 00:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.

Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-15 18:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
mainframetech
2017-05-17 00:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS. Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it, so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK. If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-19 20:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
mainframetech
2017-05-20 14:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-21 18:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 20:10:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person. THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.

So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented. Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-23 14:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-24 00:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
DNA?
Post by bigdog
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
WRONG! No need. FMJ bullets are made not to fragment when hitting a
person. So all those fragments you postulate didn't happen. Never mind
that there was no direction they could go in from the head of JFK because
there was no wound pointing in the directions of many of the strikes.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Ah, suddenly the 'pristine' bullet wasn't even close to 'pristine'.
But we can see it in a photo, and it certainly looks like it came through
2 men 7 times including 2 bone strikes with extremely little damage:

Loading Image...

The first bullet to the left is the 'pristine' bullet (CE399), and
next to it are 2 sides of a test bullet (CE572). They look a lot alike.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
We're not in court. But if you want to convince someone, you may have
to prove your point. Actually, you're WRONG as usual. First, the bullet
itself can pick up bits of fabric from clothing it passes through, and
clothing can get bits of metal from the bullet embedded in them. As well,
some bodily fluids can and sometimes does adhere to the bullet. So as
usual, you know nothing of these things. Here's an example where they
were able to find blood on bullets from a battle in 1777 when the bullets
were found buried in a foot of earth:

https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/01/forensic-expert-finds-trace-blood-revolutionary-war-bullets

Let me know if you need to know anything in that area. Glad to help
out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
What you've presented is your opinions. Not important.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
I made them, and your opinion is of no use. So you're unable to
satisfy even my "silly demands". I see.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-26 01:08:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
WRONG! No need. FMJ bullets are made not to fragment when hitting a
person. So all those fragments you postulate didn't happen.
No need when you can just make up a bullshit claim which you couldn't
support if your life depended on it. FMJ bullets won't fragment when
hitting something soft. They will fragment when hitting something hard.
Like a skull.
Post by mainframetech
Never mind
that there was no direction they could go in from the head of JFK because
there was no wound pointing in the directions of many of the strikes.
So once again you claim there was no line from JFK's head to the hole in
the windshield but there was a line from the hole in the windshield to
JFK's head. Brilliant, Einstein.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Ah, suddenly the 'pristine' bullet wasn't even close to 'pristine'.
Not suddenly. The bullet quit looking pristine the instant it started
hitting Connally's bones.
Post by mainframetech
But we can see it in a photo, and it certainly looks like it came through
That depends on which angle you look at it from. The bullet is flat and
the bullet is bent. Pristine bullets have neither of those
characteristics.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
The first bullet to the left is the 'pristine' bullet (CE399), and
next to it are 2 sides of a test bullet (CE572). They look a lot alike.
The bullet to the left is not pristine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
We're not in court. But if you want to convince someone, you may have
to prove your point. Actually, you're WRONG as usual. First, the bullet
itself can pick up bits of fabric from clothing it passes through, and
clothing can get bits of metal from the bullet embedded in them. As well,
some bodily fluids can and sometimes does adhere to the bullet. So as
usual, you know nothing of these things. Here's an example where they
were able to find blood on bullets from a battle in 1777 when the bullets
https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/01/forensic-expert-finds-trace-blood-revolutionary-war-bullets
Let me know if you need to know anything in that area. Glad to help
out.
That's nice. I guess you didn't know there was no such thing as DNA
testing in 1777 nor in 1963 so there was no way to prove who the bullet
had passed through. DNA testing began in 1984. I'll bet you can't point to
a real murder case in which the prosecution even tried to prove to a jury
that bullets recovered outside a victim's body had passed through him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
What you've presented is your opinions. Not important.
It's not my opinion that you haven't presented proof. It is a fact you
have not presented proof.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
I made them, and your opinion is of no use. So you're unable to
satisfy even my "silly demands". I see.
That's the reason the demands are silly. It is not something that is done
in the course of murder investigations. If it was you could point to
examples in which it was done. You can't.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 00:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
WRONG! No need. FMJ bullets are made not to fragment when hitting a
person. So all those fragments you postulate didn't happen.
No need when you can just make up a bullshit claim which you couldn't
support if your life depended on it. FMJ bullets won't fragment when
hitting something soft. They will fragment when hitting something hard.
Like a skull.
WRONG as usual! You've seen the photo of the wrist bone of a cadaver
that was hit by an MC bullet. It's the extreme right in this photo:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif

Note that the bullet did NOT fragment when it struck a bone, it simply
was pushed back and mushroomed. No missing fragments.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Never mind
that there was no direction they could go in from the head of JFK because
there was no wound pointing in the directions of many of the strikes.
So once again you claim there was no line from JFK's head to the hole in
the windshield but there was a line from the hole in the windshield to
JFK's head. Brilliant, Einstein.
WRONG! I see you're unable to understand the bullet path. You see
Einstein, the hole in the windshield was shown to be a hole that went
through the windshield FROM THE OUTSIDE, not a crack made by some errant
fragment flying from who knows where. Therefore there was no fragment
from the head of JFK.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Ah, suddenly the 'pristine' bullet wasn't even close to 'pristine'.
Not suddenly. The bullet quit looking pristine the instant it started
hitting Connally's bones.
It sure doesn't look like the photo of a bullet that hit a wrist here
to the right:

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But we can see it in a photo, and it certainly looks like it came through
That depends on which angle you look at it from. The bullet is flat and
the bullet is bent. Pristine bullets have neither of those
characteristics.
I said ALMOST pristine. Think it through. I admit the CE399 bullet
has as much damage as the test bullet right next to it. and in the same
places too!

http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
The first bullet to the left is the 'pristine' bullet (CE399), and
next to it are 2 sides of a test bullet (CE572). They look a lot alike.
The bullet to the left is not pristine.
WRONG! I guess you missed the apostrophes there around the word
'pristine'. Or don't know what they mean.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
We're not in court. But if you want to convince someone, you may have
to prove your point. Actually, you're WRONG as usual. First, the bullet
itself can pick up bits of fabric from clothing it passes through, and
clothing can get bits of metal from the bullet embedded in them. As well,
some bodily fluids can and sometimes does adhere to the bullet. So as
usual, you know nothing of these things. Here's an example where they
were able to find blood on bullets from a battle in 1777 when the bullets
https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/01/forensic-expert-finds-trace-blood-revolutionary-war-bullets
Let me know if you need to know anything in that area. Glad to help
out.
That's nice. I guess you didn't know there was no such thing as DNA
testing in 1777 nor in 1963 so there was no way to prove who the bullet
had passed through. DNA testing began in 1984. I'll bet you can't point to
a real murder case in which the prosecution even tried to prove to a jury
that bullets recovered outside a victim's body had passed through him.
WRONG! You've screwed up again. Your comment that got us into that
was "there is no test that can prove that the bullet passed through the
body". There was nothing there about DNA testing, and if you understood
my point, the blood remained on the bullet SINCE 1777, not IN 1777.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
What you've presented is your opinions. Not important.
It's not my opinion that you haven't presented proof. It is a fact you
have not presented proof.
WRONG! In this case, logic is used as proof. And it is simple and
unassailable.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
I made them, and your opinion is of no use. So you're unable to
satisfy even my "silly demands". I see.
That's the reason the demands are silly. It is not something that is done
in the course of murder investigations. If it was you could point to
examples in which it was done. You can't.
FALSE! Don't decide anything for me. You haven't the knowledge.
You are not familiar with every case in human history, so don't even begin
to try and use that foolishness on me.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-27 22:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS.
Unless they wanted to shoot the POTUS and it was the only rifle they
owned.
WRONG! Whether it was the only rifle owned or not, no one would be so
stupid as to shoot at the POTUS without trying the rifle and if found to
have faults, having them fixed. Use your head for a change.
Obviously someone did shoot at the POTUS in the condition the rifle was in at the time since there was a fragmented bullet from that rifle found in the limo.
WRONG! A fragmented bullet found in the limo might explain the bullet
strike over the windshield in the chrome bar, but not any bullet that hit
any person.
Of course you have a ballistics expert who will concur with you on that
point. You wouldn't just pull a statement like that out of your ass.
WRONG! No need. FMJ bullets are made not to fragment when hitting a
person. So all those fragments you postulate didn't happen.
No need when you can just make up a bullshit claim which you couldn't
support if your life depended on it. FMJ bullets won't fragment when
hitting something soft. They will fragment when hitting something hard.
Like a skull.
WRONG as usual! You've seen the photo of the wrist bone of a cadaver
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
Note that the bullet did NOT fragment when it struck a bone, it simply
was pushed back and mushroomed. No missing fragments.
Got any photos of a bullet Carcano bullet fired into a human skull? Other
than of course the one found in pieces on the floor of the limo.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Never mind
that there was no direction they could go in from the head of JFK because
there was no wound pointing in the directions of many of the strikes.
So once again you claim there was no line from JFK's head to the hole in
the windshield but there was a line from the hole in the windshield to
JFK's head. Brilliant, Einstein.
WRONG! I see you're unable to understand the bullet path.
I can't understand how you could say there is a path from the hole in the
windshield to the head wound but there is no path from the head wound to
the hole in the windshield.
Post by mainframetech
You see
Einstein, the hole in the windshield was shown to be a hole that went
through the windshield FROM THE OUTSIDE, not a crack made by some errant
fragment flying from who knows where. Therefore there was no fragment
from the head of JFK.
No you've claimed that. You've never established that. You've tried to
alter witness statements to show that.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
THAT you haven't shown. Since there was one bullet (in
pieces) found in the limo, and one bullet found on the WRONG gurney in
Parkland, neither in position to have hit a person, the proof needed to
show that an MC bullet hit or hurt anyone is missing. The bullet on the
gurney was the 'pristine' bullet, with little damage. The bullet that did
damage to JFK and supposedly Connally too, hit 2 men 7 times including 2
bone strikes. It sure wouldn't look like the 'pristine' bullet.
The bullet on the gurney was not pristine. Not even close.
Ah, suddenly the 'pristine' bullet wasn't even close to 'pristine'.
Not suddenly. The bullet quit looking pristine the instant it started
hitting Connally's bones.
It sure doesn't look like the photo of a bullet that hit a wrist here
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
That's because it didn't smash nose first into the wrist bone the way the
test bullet did. It tumbled into the wrist bone after first being slowed
down by passing through two torsos. No reason at all to think they would
look similar.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But we can see it in a photo, and it certainly looks like it came through
That depends on which angle you look at it from. The bullet is flat and
the bullet is bent. Pristine bullets have neither of those
characteristics.
I said ALMOST pristine. Think it through. I admit the CE399 bullet
has as much damage as the test bullet right next to it. and in the same
places too!
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
If you look at it from a different angle, it doesn't look even almost
pristine.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
http://www.jfk-info.com/Exf294.gif
The first bullet to the left is the 'pristine' bullet (CE399), and
next to it are 2 sides of a test bullet (CE572). They look a lot alike.
The bullet to the left is not pristine.
WRONG! I guess you missed the apostrophes there around the word
'pristine'. Or don't know what they mean.
Using apostrophes allows you to mischaracterize the bullet?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it,
Another product of your imagination.
Prove it. I've offered proof that he didn't practice with the rifle,
give us you wild proofs against that. Something besides opinion.
No, you've argued that Oswald never practiced with the rifle but those
arguments have never been accompanied by proof. Just your tortured logic.
WRONG! I've shown that the rifle had a misaligned scope and that if
it had been practiced with, it would have been noticed, and so it wasn't
practiced with, which also means there was no intent to use it to shoot
the POTUS. The logic is only "tortured" to someone that is unable to
understand simple talk.
Thank you for demonstrating what I said about your tortured logic.
Post by mainframetech
So where is your attempt to show that the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone?
Nothing so far.
You have the misguided idea that is an element that needs to be proven in
a gunshot case. Name one other gun shot murder in which the prosecution
had to meet that requirement. When a bullet leaves a body there is no test
that can prove that the bullet passed through the body. There is
circumstantial evidence and common sense. You should try applying some of
the latter.
We're not in court. But if you want to convince someone, you may have
to prove your point. Actually, you're WRONG as usual. First, the bullet
itself can pick up bits of fabric from clothing it passes through, and
clothing can get bits of metal from the bullet embedded in them. As well,
some bodily fluids can and sometimes does adhere to the bullet. So as
usual, you know nothing of these things. Here's an example where they
were able to find blood on bullets from a battle in 1777 when the bullets
https://www.forensicmag.com/article/2016/01/forensic-expert-finds-trace-blood-revolutionary-war-bullets
Let me know if you need to know anything in that area. Glad to help
out.
That's nice. I guess you didn't know there was no such thing as DNA
testing in 1777 nor in 1963 so there was no way to prove who the bullet
had passed through. DNA testing began in 1984. I'll bet you can't point to
a real murder case in which the prosecution even tried to prove to a jury
that bullets recovered outside a victim's body had passed through him.
WRONG! You've screwed up again. Your comment that got us into that
was "there is no test that can prove that the bullet passed through the
body". There was nothing there about DNA testing, and if you understood
my point, the blood remained on the bullet SINCE 1777, not IN 1777.
Frazier testified there was a substance on both CE399 and the two large
fragments but no test was done to determine whether or not it was blood.
Why would he. There was no test to match the blood to the victim in those
days. He was trying to match the bullets to the rifle.

Mr. EISENBERG. Getting back to the two bullet fragments mentioned, Mr.
Frazier, did you alter them in any way after they had been received in the
laboratory, by way of cleaning or otherwise?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; there was a very slight residue of blood or some
other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It
was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination, but it actually
would not have been necessary.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that true on both fragments?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. You also mentioned there was blood or some other substance
on the bullet marked 399. Is this an off-hand determination, or was there
a test to determine what the substance was?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, there was no test made of the materials.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK.
And another.
DITTO.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
And still another.
DITTO!
Still nothing but your empty claims. No proof of any of them.
The prof has been presented.
What you have presented isn't proof.
What you've presented is your opinions. Not important.
It's not my opinion that you haven't presented proof. It is a fact you
have not presented proof.
WRONG! In this case, logic is used as proof. And it is simple and
unassailable.
You have presented neither proof nor logic. I just assailed it which
disproves your last statement.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Whether it is enough or not to show that
no MC bullet hit or hurt anyone, is to be judged, but you've offered
absolutely nothing to prove that an MC bullet DID hit or hurt someone, yet
you keep repeating your opinion that it killed JFK. You really need to
show some sort of proof, or it's just more of your baloney.
Keep babbling about your silly demands which is all you can do since you
have no legitimate arguments to make.
I made them, and your opinion is of no use. So you're unable to
satisfy even my "silly demands". I see.
That's the reason the demands are silly. It is not something that is done
in the course of murder investigations. If it was you could point to
examples in which it was done. You can't.
FALSE! Don't decide anything for me. You haven't the knowledge.
You are not familiar with every case in human history, so don't even begin
to try and use that foolishness on me.
So you tacitly admit you can't point to any other case in which the
prosecution met your demand that bullets recovered outside a victim's body
be matched to that victim.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 19:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Excellent post. Except for the most delusional CT, if LHO was a patsy he
was a WILLING patsy. He thought he was supposed to shoot the President
with his cheap milsurp rifle that was still a deadly weapon. For him to
be a clueless patsy he would have to be a dolt, not adult. We can see by
his TV interview in New Orleans he was a competent political observer and
handled himself adroitly in the August 1963 interview.
lee harvey oswald's complete august 1963 wdsu-tv interview - YouTube
http://youtu.be/JP4qwrniKt0
Oswald-On-The-Radio
Blogspot.com
The evidence that has been shown proves that Oswald didn't fire a shot
from his own MC rifle. Not that it would hit anything anyway.
The evidence is that Chris has said it is so and that should be enough for
anybody.
Still looking for an audience I see. Can't face me with your silliness
anymore?
If you think my statement is wrong, make your argument.
So once more you have the burden of proof bassackwards. You are the one
who claimed there is proof Oswald didn't fire a shot. The burden is on you
to provide such proof of that claim, a claim you have made often and
proved never.
I have given the information more times than you can count, because of
your constant repeating of the same questions over and over. Now it's up
to you to back yourself up for a change. Usually you offer nothing more
than a bunch of useless opinions. Time for proof.
Hint: the info I gave related to the rifle having a misaligned scope
from a bad mounting.
Regardless of flaws in the rifle real or imagined, that isn't proof of
your claim that Oswald never fired a shot.
WRONG! Now there's an example of your inability to figure out simple
problems. No one would want to use a rifle that was faulty to shoot at
the POTUS. Oswald never tried the MC rifle or practiced with it, so he
didn't have any intent to shoot JFK. If he had wanted to shoot JFK, he
would have practiced, found the faults, and fixed them before going for
the POTUS. Simple.
You would have to in order to frame Oswald.
All the WC defenders here would not even be slightly suspicious if the
rifle they found was a special $5,000 CIA sniper rifle.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-08 00:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
autobiography:

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html

Chris
BOZ
2017-05-08 21:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Chris
Where did Bob Jackson see a rifle? Dal Tex?
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 14:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Chris
Where did Bob Jackson see a rifle? Dal Tex?
No. TSBD.
mainframetech
2017-05-09 14:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Chris
Where did Bob Jackson see a rifle? Dal Tex?


Chris
donald willis
2017-05-10 02:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Chris
Where did Bob Jackson see a rifle? Dal Tex?
Wherever he saw it, the sniper had the rifle on a window ledge, according
to both Jackson & Brennan! No "rifle rest" box, as we see in the
"sniper's nest"....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 13:24:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
Later, Brennan admitted that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he
identified him in a lineup, and admitted that a police detective told him
which position in the lineup Oswald was in. That's to be found in his
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Chris
Where did Bob Jackson see a rifle? Dal Tex?
Wherever he saw it, the sniper had the rifle on a window ledge, according
to both Jackson & Brennan! No "rifle rest" box, as we see in the
"sniper's nest"....
dcw
It was physically impossible to sit on the ledge with all those boxes in
the way. No one stuck a rifle out the window with all those boxes in the
way.
Jonny Mayer
2017-05-11 18:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
claviger
2017-05-12 01:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Easy to figure out for any normal person who isn't a CT fanatic.
mainframetech
2017-05-13 00:26:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Easy to figure out for any normal person who isn't a CT fanatic.
Only the CTs would be able to understand why Brennan discredited
himself.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-15 00:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Easy to figure out for any normal person who isn't a CT fanatic.
Only the CTs would be able to understand why Brennan discredited
himself.
That is a true statement. Sensible people wouldn't.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-12 02:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Something like that. One problem is that we don't know what the original
placement of the boxes was at the time of the shooting. The DPD kept
moving them around.
donald willis
2017-05-14 13:05:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-15 03:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....
Dillard was always closer than Brennan. He was in the camera car in the
middle of Elm Street and we can see Brennan sitting on the reflecting poll
wall on the south side of the sidewalk.
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2017-05-16 00:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....
Dillard was always closer than Brennan. He was in the camera car in the
middle of Elm Street and we can see Brennan sitting on the reflecting poll
wall on the south side of the sidewalk.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Very interesting. But did Dillard take one of his pictures while the car
was already on Elm? (Dillard would *not*, it seems, have been closer when
the car was still on Houston.) if so, then it seems that Brennan should
have seen the "rifle box"... if, that is, the rifle was in the "nest"....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-17 10:20:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....
Dillard was always closer than Brennan. He was in the camera car in the
middle of Elm Street and we can see Brennan sitting on the reflecting poll
wall on the south side of the sidewalk.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Very interesting. But did Dillard take one of his pictures while the car
was already on Elm? (Dillard would *not*, it seems, have been closer when
the car was still on Houston.) if so, then it seems that Brennan should
have seen the "rifle box"... if, that is, the rifle was in the "nest"....
Not sure what you mean. Show me the photo you think Dillard took while on
Houston. As far as I know Dillard never said that he saw the rifle as they
were driving down Houston. If he did then shouldn't WE also be able to SEE
it with our naked eyes in the Hughes film? You do have the Hughes film,
don't you?
Post by donald willis
dcw
donald willis
2017-05-18 01:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....
Dillard was always closer than Brennan. He was in the camera car in the
middle of Elm Street and we can see Brennan sitting on the reflecting poll
wall on the south side of the sidewalk.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Very interesting. But did Dillard take one of his pictures while the car
was already on Elm? (Dillard would *not*, it seems, have been closer when
the car was still on Houston.) if so, then it seems that Brennan should
have seen the "rifle box"... if, that is, the rifle was in the "nest"....
Not sure what you mean. Show me the photo you think Dillard took while on
Houston. As far as I know Dillard never said that he saw the rifle as they
were driving down Houston. If he did then shouldn't WE also be able to SEE
it with our naked eyes in the Hughes film? You do have the Hughes film,
don't you?
Post by donald willis
dcw
Just wanted to clarify. Then Brennan should have seen the "rifle box" if
the rifle was in the "nest" window....

dcw
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 03:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by donald willis
Post by Jonny Mayer
From Brennan's view point it would look as if he was resting on the
windowsill but that was a perspective error.
Good point. And I've considered that. The Dillard photos show the edge
of the "window" box. How close was Dillard for the 2nd pic? If he was
closer then Brennan should have seen part of the box at least....
Dillard was always closer than Brennan. He was in the camera car in the
middle of Elm Street and we can see Brennan sitting on the reflecting poll
wall on the south side of the sidewalk.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Very interesting. But did Dillard take one of his pictures while the car
was already on Elm? (Dillard would *not*, it seems, have been closer when
the car was still on Houston.) if so, then it seems that Brennan should
have seen the "rifle box"... if, that is, the rifle was in the "nest"....
Not sure what you mean. Show me the photo you think Dillard took while on
Houston. As far as I know Dillard never said that he saw the rifle as they
were driving down Houston. If he did then shouldn't WE also be able to SEE
it with our naked eyes in the Hughes film? You do have the Hughes film,
don't you?
Post by donald willis
dcw
Just wanted to clarify. Then Brennan should have seen the "rifle box" if
the rifle was in the "nest" window....
Which rifle box? Can you show it to me? Maybe mark it in red?
I don't get the point about why Brennan should see ANY boxes.
If YOU can't even see boxes in the many photos and films why should
Brennan? X-ray vision?

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/officialsn.htm

Loading Image...
Post by donald willis
dcw
bigdog
2017-05-08 01:08:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
mainframetech
2017-05-08 23:39:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-10 15:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
This was from Brennan's SWORN testimony to the WC:

"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."

Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
donald willis
2017-05-11 02:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man
So did McWatters. So much for "positive IDs"!

who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
Post by bigdog
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
BOZ
2017-05-11 17:37:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man
So did McWatters. So much for "positive IDs"!
who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
Post by bigdog
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
Delusional Don strikes again.
donald willis
2017-05-12 00:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man
So did McWatters. So much for "positive IDs"!
who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
Post by bigdog
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
Delusional Don strikes again.
Is that what's called "ad hominem"? Hard to tell from the foregoing who
or what you're answering. If you're referring to my dismissal of
McWatters' lineup ID--look it up in your Warren Report. The Commission
could not accept his positive lineup ID of Oswald....

dcw
mainframetech
2017-05-13 00:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man
So did McWatters. So much for "positive IDs"!
who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
Post by bigdog
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
Delusional Don strikes again.
Is that what's called "ad hominem"? Hard to tell from the foregoing who
or what you're answering. If you're referring to my dismissal of
McWatters' lineup ID--look it up in your Warren Report. The Commission
could not accept his positive lineup ID of Oswald....
dcw
'Ad Hominem' is the standard method of communication for most LNs.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-12 00:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man
So did McWatters. So much for "positive IDs"!
Never rely on witnesses.
Post by donald willis
who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
Post by bigdog
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-11 03:02:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
He didn't say NO.
Post by bigdog
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
LIE
Post by bigdog
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
Doesn't matter if he was the owner. He could have been firing someone
else's rifle.
Post by bigdog
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
No, Brennan never saw the shooter in the act of shooting. That is a lie.
Post by bigdog
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
Only when they LIE about it.
And two bullets were not recovered. That is false.
All you do here is post falsehoods.
mainframetech
2017-05-11 16:32:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know. However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup. That disqualifies him right there. Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-13 15:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
mainframetech
2017-05-15 00:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-15 18:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
mainframetech
2017-05-17 00:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.

Chris
claviger
2017-05-18 01:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
mainframetech
2017-05-18 23:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-19 23:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Now that's a new one. So Brennan was a plant? And your evidence of that
is......????

Oh, wait a minute. That's one of the things you had to convince yourself
of to make your story seem believable to you. Therefore, no evidence is
necessary. If you need it to be true, it must be true.
mainframetech
2017-05-21 02:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Now that's a new one. So Brennan was a plant? And your evidence of that
is......????
Please try to get a grip on your fantasies! It's a possibility, since
we're dealing here with a plot, not the act of a 'lone nut'.
Post by bigdog
Oh, wait a minute. That's one of the things you had to convince yourself
of to make your story seem believable to you. Therefore, no evidence is
necessary. If you need it to be true, it must be true.
See above. It's a possibility. There's also the possibility that
Brennan said a description that was good for many men. Remember he was
able to see something that no one else could see. He saw clear detail of
a face, when that face was never at that window!

Chris
claviger
2017-05-20 17:43:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
WRONG! In his book Brennan explains why he was uncomfortable about the
lineup. It made him even more uncomfortable that a police officer gave
him information that was inappropriate, so he refused to ID Oswald even
though he knew it was the same guy in the window. He recognized LHO when
he saw him on TV. All Brennan ever did was give a fairly good description
of the shooter in the window. He considered his job over as a witness
after reporting that information to the DPD. Brennan was a reluctant
witness but felt a duty to tell police and FBI what he saw. Compare that
to the six witnesses in a row who never offered any info to authorities
investigating this national tragedy.
mainframetech
2017-05-21 19:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
WRONG! In his book Brennan explains why he was uncomfortable about the
lineup. It made him even more uncomfortable that a police officer gave
him information that was inappropriate, so he refused to ID Oswald even
though he knew it was the same guy in the window. He recognized LHO when
he saw him on TV. All Brennan ever did was give a fairly good description
of the shooter in the window. He considered his job over as a witness
after reporting that information to the DPD. Brennan was a reluctant
witness but felt a duty to tell police and FBI what he saw. Compare that
to the six witnesses in a row who never offered any info to authorities
investigating this national tragedy.
Funny, Brennan gave a very different reason for giving no ID the first
time. You might want to think that one over. And of course, if he said
it in his autobiography, it must be true. He wouldn't cover for himself,
right? And he wasn't too reluctant a witness when he wrote his
autobiography, or had a writer do it for him.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 18:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Well, the cops TOLD me him which guy it was. #2. How hard is that?
BOZ
2017-05-22 03:40:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Well, the cops TOLD me him which guy it was. #2. How hard is that?
Awkward sentence structure. Please revise.
claviger
2017-05-20 19:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
Want he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
donald willis
2017-05-21 18:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness.
Was it fellow witness Vergie Rackley who said Brennan was in front the
depository telling everyone what he had seen? So Brennan's supposed
shyness re IDing Oswald won't fly, He saw someone, but had no idea who,
apparently....

dcw
mainframetech
2017-05-22 20:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness.
Was it fellow witness Vergie Rackley who said Brennan was in front the
depository telling everyone what he had seen? So Brennan's supposed
shyness re IDing Oswald won't fly, He saw someone, but had no idea who,
apparently....
dcw
Interesting point! Brennan is used as some kind of witness to Oswald
being in the window of the 6th floor. But Euins who was right near him on
the corner couldn't see much of anything in that window, although he saw a
rifle pointed out.


EUINS was a teen with good vision, why would he be unable to see much of
anything in that window and Brennan could see everything and be able to
describe Oswald? And then blat out his description to the world?

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 11:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness.
Was it fellow witness Vergie Rackley who said Brennan was in front the
depository telling everyone what he had seen? So Brennan's supposed
shyness re IDing Oswald won't fly, He saw someone, but had no idea who,
apparently....
dcw
Interesting point! Brennan is used as some kind of witness to Oswald
being in the window of the 6th floor. But Euins who was right near him on
the corner couldn't see much of anything in that window, although he saw a
rifle pointed out.
EUINS was a teen with good vision, why would he be unable to see much of
anything in that window and Brennan could see everything and be able to
describe Oswald? And then blat out his description to the world?
Chris
Different angle of view. And Euins was not standing close to Brennan.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 19:40:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
Want he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
There is no proof that Tippit singled out Oswald.
claviger
2017-05-21 22:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
bigdog
2017-05-22 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
That was far more important than his ID of Oswald as the shooter. He
established where the shots came from. He couldn't possibly have known
when he first spoke to the police that later shells would be found at the
window where he saw the shooter. Those shells corroborated the fact that
he did see the shooter. If the case against Oswald rested on Brennan's ID
of Oswald it would be a very weak case. That is one of the least
compelling pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. There is a treasure trove
of forensic evidence which would have convicted Oswald even if Brennan had
never located the shooter. Brennan's ID of Oswald was nothing but the
cherry on top of the sundae.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-23 11:29:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
That was far more important than his ID of Oswald as the shooter. He
established where the shots came from. He couldn't possibly have known
when he first spoke to the police that later shells would be found at the
window where he saw the shooter. Those shells corroborated the fact that
he did see the shooter. If the case against Oswald rested on Brennan's ID
of Oswald it would be a very weak case. That is one of the least
compelling pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. There is a treasure trove
of forensic evidence which would have convicted Oswald even if Brennan had
never located the shooter. Brennan's ID of Oswald was nothing but the
cherry on top of the sundae.
Those shells corroborate that 3 shots were fired from that window, not
who fired them. The acoustical evidence proves that 3 shots were fired
from that window. Brennan couldn't possibly have known about that when
he spoke to the police in 1963.
donald willis
2017-05-23 14:40:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
That was far more important than his ID of Oswald as the shooter. He
established where the shots came from. He couldn't possibly have known
when he first spoke to the police that later shells would be found at the
window where he saw the shooter. Those shells corroborated the fact that
he did see the shooter. If the case against Oswald rested on Brennan's ID
of Oswald it would be a very weak case. That is one of the least
compelling pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. There is a treasure trove
of forensic evidence which would have convicted Oswald
This is the kind of bold statement which prompted my current series, "How
far can we trust the DPD?" That "treasure trove" might begin to look more
like fool's gold....

dcw
mainframetech
2017-05-23 14:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
That wasn't instinct. Many people saw the rifle sticking out of the
window. As Brennan said he did too.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-24 00:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
WRONG! If Brennan was unable to ID Oswald, then later he was, That's
very suspicious. Brennan IDed Oswald specifically and said 'that's the
guy". Any earlier description might have fit more than one person, or
Brennan was a plant intended to give a description so the cops would go in
and hopefully kill Oswald.
Chris
Brennan was not unable to identify LHO. When he saw him on TV he knew it
was the guy in the 6th floor window. When he saw him in the line-up he
knew it was the same guy. Brennan got cold feet as a witness because LHO
might be a Communist Party member. Obviously he watched "I Led Three
Lives" on TV where communists retaliated against anyone who testified
against them. He had no desire to be a celebrity witness. The DPD did
not honor his wish to be a low profile witness and he was irritated how
they handled the line-up situation so he balked when asked to ID the perp.
Brennan felt he did his civic duty by giving a description to the DPD.
He wanted nothing more to do with the investigation. In later years he
consented to a book deal where he explained his feelings about all this.
What he did do instinctively is tell police where the sniper was located
during the shooting and what he looked like. Unfortunately that
description got DPD Tippit killed.
That wasn't instinct. Many people saw the rifle sticking out of the
window. As Brennan said he did too.
Chris
False. Physically impossible.
List and quote your "many people."
How come you don't say 100+?
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-21 03:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Chris
Naah. Brennan refused to ID Oswald at the line-up. His contribution to
the case was a good description of the man in the 6th floor window before
he saw anything on TV or the line-up. That disqualifies you.
Yeah, like seeing him standing next to the window from the waist up when
the window started 10 inches above the floor. Really good witness.

I don't suppose you're old enough to remember that movie from 1939, Young
Mr. Lincoln, where Abe Lincoln is the defense attorney defending a man
accused of murder. His accuser said he had a clear view of the killer
because there was a FULL MOON that night and no clouds. So Lincoln pulls
out his Farmer's Almanac that shows it was a NEW Moon that night. Case
Dismissed.


Abraham Lincoln, the Almanac, and a Murder Trial
When Lincoln Famously Used the Almanac
Judson Hale
Abraham Lincoln

Click to see full image of Abraham Lincoln showing an 1857 almanac to
the jury during the famous Armstrong murder trial in the spring of 1858.
The original of this Norman Rockwell painting hangs in The Norman
Rockwell Museum in Stockbridge, Massachusetts.
Yankee Archives
Share:
Rate this Article:
Average: 3.8 (37 votes)

Abraham Lincoln, born on February 12 in 1809, pursued a legal career
before turning to a political one that eventually led to the U.S.
presidency. In our Dublin, New Hampshire, office hangs a reproduction of a
painting by Norman Rockwell depicting him in front of a jury holding the
1857 edition of an almanac in his hand. Was it The Old Farmer???s Almanac?

It???s difficult to prove conclusively, but everything I???ve read about
the case???and certainly my examination of the 1857 edition???indicates
that it was. Abraham Lincoln Defends an Alleged Murderer

The occasion depicted in the Rockwell painting is the 1858 murder trial of
an Illinois man named William ???Duff??? Armstrong. Armstrong was accused
of murdering James Preston Metzker with a ???slung-shot??????a weight tied
to a leather thong, sort of an early blackjack???a few minutes before
midnight of August 29, 1857. Lincoln was a friend of the accused man???s
father, Jack Armstrong, who???d just died, and so he offered to help
defend young Duff Armstrong, without pay, as a favor to Jack Armstrong???s
widow.

The principal prosecution witness against Armstrong was a man named
Charles Allen, who testified that he???d seen the murder from about 150
feet away. When Lincoln asked Allen how he could tell it was Armstrong
given that it was the middle of the night and he was a considerable
distance away from the murder scene, Allen replied, ???By the light of the
Moon.??? How Lincoln Used the Almanac

Upon hearing Allen???s testimony, Lincoln produced a copy of the 1857
edition, turned to the two calendar pages for August, and showed the jury
that not only was the moon in the first quarter but it was riding
???low??? on the horizon, about to set, at the precise time of the murder.
There would not have been enough light for Allen to identify Armstrong or
anyone else, said Lincoln. The jury agreed, and Duff Armstrong was
acquitted.
bigdog
2017-05-19 20:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
mainframetech
2017-05-20 14:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
There's no proof of that. The description might have fit other
people too. Or Brennan might have been a shill to make the cops go into
the TSBD and find Oswald and possibly shoot him. But there's no way that
Brennan could see anyone on the 6th floor, and Euins is the proof of that.
He was near Brennan and he was unable to tell if the person was black or
white, and only was able to describe the rifle sticking out the window.
There's no way that Brennan could se anyone in the 6th floor window.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-20 15:03:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of
course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw the rifle
sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
claviger
2017-05-21 03:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.

Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window. Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness.
mainframetech
2017-05-22 04:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens. He can't prove
to me that he was honest. There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window. Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
Chris
bigdog
2017-05-23 14:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-24 00:23:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
No much of a test. Wade could have convicted a ham sandwich.
Post by bigdog
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
mainframetech
2017-05-25 12:46:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
The judge wouldn't throw it out, but the defense attorney would make
whoever used it look stupid, and they wouldn't believe Brennan.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
He can't prove it to you either.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Nothing to do with it. The evidence is that Brennan either lied or was
a shill.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
All the evidence wasn't known at that time. If it had been, Oswald
would have been freed of the JFK killing.

Chris
bigdog
2017-05-26 01:08:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
The judge wouldn't throw it out, but the defense attorney would make
whoever used it look stupid, and they wouldn't believe Brennan.
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
He can't prove it to you either.
The forensic evidence proved Brennan was credible.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Nothing to do with it. The evidence is that Brennan either lied or was
a shill.
All the evidence supports Brennan. The guy he IDed owned the rifle that
fired the recovered bullets and the shells found at the window he pointed
to. The guy he IDed left his fingerprints at the window he pointed to.
Oswald left fibers from his shirt on the rifle that fired the bullets.
Oswald left his fingerprints on the rifle bag. The rifle bag had fibers
matching Oswald's blanket which he wrapped his rifle in. We could go on,
but that is sufficient to establish Brennan's credibility.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
All the evidence wasn't known at that time. If it had been, Oswald
would have been freed of the JFK killing.
One more item to add to the ever growing list of things you have said
which conflict with all the known facts.
mainframetech
2017-05-27 00:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
The judge wouldn't throw it out, but the defense attorney would make
whoever used it look stupid, and they wouldn't believe Brennan.
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
WRONG! You have to stop deluding yourself about Brennan. He
discredited himself. But on top of that, "all that other evidence" really
doesn't amount to a bag of beans. There's nothing there to prove much of
anything. I've seen your list and I know that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
He can't prove it to you either.
The forensic evidence proved Brennan was credible.
No such thing. The evidence you're trying to pretend has some
bearing doesn't tell anything and doesn't put a rifle in Oswald's hand
firing out the window.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Nothing to do with it. The evidence is that Brennan either lied or was
a shill.
All the evidence supports Brennan. The guy he IDed owned the rifle that
fired the recovered bullets and the shells found at the window he pointed
to. The guy he IDed left his fingerprints at the window he pointed to.
You keep saying "all the evidence" when there is a pittance and none
of it puts a gun in Oswald's hand and nothing puts him at the window
shooting at the motorcade. Brennan IDed a guy that he saw on TV twice
before his line up. And also before it, a detective told him which
position Oswald was in in that lineup. He was discredited.
Post by bigdog
Oswald left fibers from his shirt on the rifle that fired the bullets.
Oswald left his fingerprints on the rifle bag. The rifle bag had fibers
matching Oswald's blanket which he wrapped his rifle in. We could go on,
but that is sufficient to establish Brennan's credibility.
WRONG! That's not nearly enough to put Oswald in the window with the
rifle. That stuff could easily happen anytime. It was Oswald's rifle.
and none of it established Brennan's credibility. He was discredited.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
All the evidence wasn't known at that time. If it had been, Oswald
would have been freed of the JFK killing.
One more item to add to the ever growing list of things you have said
which conflict with all the known facts.
One of the problems was that at the time that it counted, not all
those facts wee known. Now that they are, folks are so locked in with the
phony WCR story, that they can't envision the other evidence.

Chris
claviger
2017-05-27 22:35:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
WRONG! You have to stop deluding yourself about Brennan. He
discredited himself. But on top of that, "all that other evidence" really
doesn't amount to a bag of beans. There's nothing there to prove much of
anything. I've seen your list and I know that.
Your obsession with Brennan is making you look foolish. He was just a
blue collar construction worker who walked from his job site to see the
parade and found a concrete wall to sit on to better see the motorcade
drive by. That wall was directly across the street from the TSBD where
someone shot at the Presidential Limousine from the 6th floor window.
Several witnesses saw and heard that happen. Brennan is just one guy in
that group of witnesses. Like a good citizen ought to do he immediately
notified the nearest police officer. Compare that to your hero Gordon
Arnold who supposedly saw two people shooting at the motorcade and talked
to them face-to-face, but did nothing about it.

Who is the good citizen and who is the cowardly jerk?
mainframetech
2017-05-29 02:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
WRONG! You have to stop deluding yourself about Brennan. He
discredited himself. But on top of that, "all that other evidence" really
doesn't amount to a bag of beans. There's nothing there to prove much of
anything. I've seen your list and I know that.
Your obsession with Brennan is making you look foolish. He was just a
blue collar construction worker who walked from his job site to see the
parade and found a concrete wall to sit on to better see the motorcade
drive by.
WRONG! You seem unaware that YOU are the person that keeps posting
about Brennan and trying to resurrect his failing as a witness. I simply
respond when you post about him. If you didn't post about him, I wouldn't
respond. Try it and see.
Post by claviger
That wall was directly across the street from the TSBD where
someone shot at the Presidential Limousine from the 6th floor window.
Several witnesses saw and heard that happen. Brennan is just one guy in
that group of witnesses. Like a good citizen ought to do he immediately
notified the nearest police officer. Compare that to your hero Gordon
Arnold who supposedly saw two people shooting at the motorcade and talked
to them face-to-face, but did nothing about it.
What jerk told you that Arnold talked to the shooters? Certainly not
me. That was your own mix up. Nor did Arnold think he had done or been
involved in anything special that others had not been involved in. I'm
sure he was afraid for his hide, and left quickly to avoid any questioning
that police might do. And he was not alone in that kind of thinking.
Post by claviger
Who is the good citizen and who is the cowardly jerk?
It's really something to watch you talk of being a patriot all the
time. here's a photo you might appreciate:

Loading Image...

Chris
claviger
2017-05-29 22:49:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
WRONG! You have to stop deluding yourself about Brennan. He
discredited himself. But on top of that, "all that other evidence" really
doesn't amount to a bag of beans. There's nothing there to prove much of
anything. I've seen your list and I know that.
Your obsession with Brennan is making you look foolish. He was just a
blue collar construction worker who walked from his job site to see the
parade and found a concrete wall to sit on to better see the motorcade
drive by.
WRONG!
What part of that statement is wrong? Did he drive from his job site or
take a cab or maybe a limo? He found a concrete wall to sit on to watch
the parade. We know this because of a film taken that day where we see
him sitting above the crowd opposite the front door of the TSBD.
Post by mainframetech
You seem unaware that YOU are the person that keeps posting about Brennan
and trying to resurrect his failing as a witness. I simply respond when you post
about him. If you didn't post about him, I wouldn't respond. Try it and see.
You are the one who is totally obsessed by Brennan, and why is it you
never mention the other witnesses who validate Brennan's observation there
was a person in the 6th floor window firing a rifle at the motorcade?
Why don't you attack those witnesses too? No, you focus your frustration
on Brennan as if he was the only one who heard shots and realized where
they came from. He stayed in one place and merely looked up toward the
loud sound of gunfire and saw a man in the 6th window holding a rifle.
Three employees on the 5th floor corroborate Brennan's observation. So
far he's done nothing more than any other human being with normal hearing
and eyesight. People in the motorcade looked up and saw the same thing.
So did people on the street. You seem to be mad at Brennan because he was
normal hearing and eyesight.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
That wall was directly across the street from the TSBD where
someone shot at the Presidential Limousine from the 6th floor window.
Several witnesses saw and heard that happen. Brennan is just one guy in
that group of witnesses. Like a good citizen ought to do he immediately
notified the nearest police officer. Compare that to your hero Gordon
Arnold who supposedly saw two people shooting at the motorcade and talked
to them face-to-face, but did nothing about it.
What jerk told you that Arnold talked to the shooters?
A big jerk by the name Gordon Arnold.
Post by mainframetech
Certainly not me. That was your own mix up.
You don't even know the story he told, the reason why you are so confused.
Post by mainframetech
Nor did Arnold think he had done or been involved in anything special that
others had not been involved in.
If his story was true he is the most important witness in Dealey Plaza
that day. He saw two snipers face-to-face and had a confrontation with
them. They stole film from his camera. Did you think they used sign
language the whole time? According to Arnold they angrily yelled at him
demanding his camera. They were dressed in police uniforms standing next
to a police car.
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure he was afraid for his hide, and left quickly to avoid any questioning that
police might do.
So that's what you would do? The Commander-in-Chief of the US Army is
fired upon by men with rifles and a US soldier runs from the battlefield
and does nothing to protect his CO or the US Constitution he's sworn an
oath to defend. You see nothing wrong with this cowardly behavior?
Post by mainframetech
And he was not alone in that kind of thinking.
So that is acceptable behavior and you would have done the same thing?
What other witnesses saw two snipers that day and did nothing about it?
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Who is the good citizen and who is the cowardly jerk?
It's really something to watch you talk of being a patriot all the
time.
When you wear a US military uniform you're on duty 24/7. If there is an
attack on your Commanding Officer you defend and retaliate anyway you can.
You find help and point to the enemy. That's what soldiers do. How
ironic this must be explained to you on Memorial Day.
Post by mainframetech
http://www.worldwar1.com/roads/jpg/roads_patriot.jpg
Chris
claviger
2017-05-30 18:48:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
You seem to be mad at Brennan because he has normal hearing and eyesight.
All he did was look up to see where the loud noise was coming from.
mainframetech
2017-05-31 14:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
You seem to be mad at Brennan because he has normal hearing and eyesight.
All he did was look up to see where the loud noise was coming from.
Why would I be angry at him? He didn't disappoint me. He admitted he
had seen Oswald on TV twice before IDing him, and he admitted that a
detective gave him Oswald's position in the lineup.

Chris

mainframetech
2017-05-30 23:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They would after seeing all the other evidence that it was Oswald in the
in the window firing the rifle at JFK. Oswald could have been convicted
even without Brennan's testimony. The case didn't depend on Brennan.
WRONG! You have to stop deluding yourself about Brennan. He
discredited himself. But on top of that, "all that other evidence" really
doesn't amount to a bag of beans. There's nothing there to prove much of
anything. I've seen your list and I know that.
Your obsession with Brennan is making you look foolish. He was just a
blue collar construction worker who walked from his job site to see the
parade and found a concrete wall to sit on to better see the motorcade
drive by.
WRONG!
What part of that statement is wrong? Did he drive from his job site or
take a cab or maybe a limo? He found a concrete wall to sit on to watch
the parade. We know this because of a film taken that day where we see
him sitting above the crowd opposite the front door of the TSBD.
What's wrong is that the obsession over Brennan is yours, not mine.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
You seem unaware that YOU are the person that keeps posting about Brennan
and trying to resurrect his failing as a witness. I simply respond when you post
about him. If you didn't post about him, I wouldn't respond. Try it and see.
You are the one who is totally obsessed by Brennan, and why is it you
never mention the other witnesses who validate Brennan's observation there
was a person in the 6th floor window firing a rifle at the motorcade?
The obsession is yours. Test it and see. I fully am aware of others
that saw a rifle coming out of the 6th floor window, and also the 3
witnesses that saw 2 men in the 6th floor window. I have no problem with
the fact that the MC rifle fired probably 3 shots into the motorcade. I
just know it wasn't Oswald.
Post by claviger
Why don't you attack those witnesses too? No, you focus your frustration
on Brennan as if he was the only one who heard shots and realized where
they came from.
Your obsession is getting to you now. I have no reason to attack those
others that saw a rifle coming out of the 6th floor window, since I
believe them. But NONE of them could see much of the person behind the
rifle. Only Brennan gave this perfect ID of an Oswald type.
Post by claviger
He stayed in one place and merely looked up toward the
loud sound of gunfire and saw a man in the 6th window holding a rifle.
Three employees on the 5th floor corroborate Brennan's observation.
The 3 workers cannot completely corroborate Brennan's sighting. They
could not see above them in the 6th floor window. But Amos Euins could,
and he could hardly see whether the man there was black or white, yet his
vision was normal for a teen. And he was near Brennan.
Post by claviger
So
far he's done nothing more than any other human being with normal hearing
and eyesight. People in the motorcade looked up and saw the same thing.
So did people on the street. You seem to be mad at Brennan because he was
normal hearing and eyesight.
NO! People did NOT see the same thing. No one else was able to give a
description like the one given by Brennan. Not one person. Including the
person near him.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
That wall was directly across the street from the TSBD where
someone shot at the Presidential Limousine from the 6th floor window.
Several witnesses saw and heard that happen. Brennan is just one guy in
that group of witnesses. Like a good citizen ought to do he immediately
notified the nearest police officer. Compare that to your hero Gordon
Arnold who supposedly saw two people shooting at the motorcade and talked
to them face-to-face, but did nothing about it.
What jerk told you that Arnold talked to the shooters?
A big jerk by the name Gordon Arnold.
WRONG! Arnold did NOT say he spoke with a shooter.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Certainly not me. That was your own mix up.
You don't even know the story he told, the reason why you are so confused.
If you need me to help you, I'll post the video again.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Nor did Arnold think he had done or been involved in anything special that
others had not been involved in.
If his story was true he is the most important witness in Dealey Plaza
that day. He saw two snipers face-to-face and had a confrontation with
them. They stole film from his camera.
FALSE! Who told you Arnold saw 2 snipers, or even shooters? No one,
and not even Arnold said that. You're making it up now, as you sometimes
do. And I'm still waiting for your cites and link for the policemen on
the "lawn" that you said was there.
Post by claviger
Did you think they used sign
language the whole time? According to Arnold they angrily yelled at him
demanding his camera. They were dressed in police uniforms standing next
to a police car.
THERE WAS NO POLICE CAR. WHERE DID YOU GET THAT PHONY INFORMATION?
Cite and link please.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
I'm sure he was afraid for his hide, and left quickly to avoid any questioning that police might do.
So that's what you would do? The Commander-in-Chief of the US Army is
fired upon by men with rifles and a US soldier runs from the battlefield
and does nothing to protect his CO or the US Constitution he's sworn an
oath to defend. You see nothing wrong with this cowardly behavior?
Oh stop the patriotic drama! In a civilian situation many people
might well keep their mouth shut, whether in the military or not.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
And he was not alone in that kind of thinking.
So that is acceptable behavior and you would have done the same thing?
What other witnesses saw two snipers that day and did nothing about it?
Actually, Zapruder heard shots from behind him, but they came to him
and asked questions. And he saw no "snipers" either. And your obsession
with your pet theory isn't helping you see the reality of the situation.
Any shooters that were firing from the fence would NOT stick around and
look for a movie camera. They would have been gone in a car the minute
they had fired a shot or two.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Who is the good citizen and who is the cowardly jerk?
It's really something to watch you talk of being a patriot all the
time.
When you wear a US military uniform you're on duty 24/7. If there is an
attack on your Commanding Officer you defend and retaliate anyway you can.
You find help and point to the enemy. That's what soldiers do. How
ironic this must be explained to you on Memorial Day.
Don't bother. I was in the military and I'm familiar with how it goes
there. If this were MASH 4077, you'd be Major Burns no doubt with all
that patriotism.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
http://www.worldwar1.com/roads/jpg/roads_patriot.jpg
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-26 01:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
WRONG! Odd that you would say that, since there is NO evidence
backing those statements. Actually, there is GREAT doubt that Brennan saw
Oswald in the window of the TSBD, and he admits it in his autobiography.
Brennan states that he saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him in
a lineup, and he admits that a detective told him which position Oswald
was in in the lineup before he made any ID. You pick the most useless
things to try to use to back up the tired old WCR.
"Mr. BELIN. What is the fact as to whether or not your having seen Oswald
on television would have affected your identification of him one way or the
other?
Mr. BRENNAN. That is something I do not know.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot
positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man
that you saw in the police station?
Mr. BRENNAN. I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him
as being the same man."
Brennan IDed the man who it turned out was the owner of the rifle found on
the sixth floor, who left his prints on that rifle, the rifle bag, and the
sniper's nest where Brennan saw the shooter fire the last shot from. That
rifle was the only rifle in the world which could have fired the empty
shells found at that location and the only two bullets recovered from the
shooting. It isn't a matter of Brennan validating all that evidence. All
that evidence validates Brennan.
WRONG! Not at all! First, Brennan sounds hesitant, but that doesn't
matter. In that setting, anyone would want to act like they knew what
they were doing, yet Brennan says he doesn't know.
Unlike you, it didn't assume things for which he had no knowledge.
Post by mainframetech
However, it's far more
telling when he says that he had seen Oswald on TV twice before he went
down to the lineup, and he admits that a detective gave him the position
that Oswald was in in the lineup.
The fact that he later saw Oswald on TV doesn't preclude him from having
also seen him in the sniper's nest at 12:30.
Post by mainframetech
That disqualifies him right there.
Only in Conspiracyland.
Ah. This is a witness that you badly wish you could have. But it's
too late. He disqualified himself. He made it clear that he had prior
information that would help to identify Oswald. He's gone.
His prior information was that he saw Oswald in the sniper's nest firing
the last shot at JFK.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Of course he also didn't know a scope was on the rifle, yet he saw
the rifle sticking out the window. A lawyer had to prompt him.
So you think it hurts his credibility because he didn't claim to see
something he didn't remember.
Now so soon his memory is messed up? Not much of a witness, not to
mention he discredited himself.
Chris
Naah. He saw Oswald on TV twice before he went down to do the lineup,
and then when he got there, a detective told him which position Oswald was
in in the lineup. That disqualified him.
Doesn't change the fact that before Brennan saw Oswald on TV he saw him on
the 6th floor of the TSBD shooting JFK. The fact that Oswald appeared on
Yes, it does. He saw someone up in that window. He did not see the guy
firing. Only after he saw Oswald identified on the news did he say he
saw Owald in that window.
Post by bigdog
TV would not have disqualified Brennan as a witness had the case gone to
trial. This is just an example of the lame excuses you dream up to dismiss
incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt.
If it had gone to trial, Brennan would have been discredited.
That's why they didn't want a trial.
Discredited for giving a description to police within minutes of the
shooting? He didn't know the shooter's name only what he looked like.
When LHO was arrested he fit the APB description. Brennan REFUSED to ID
LHO at the line-up. At this point Brennan has done all he can do for the
DPD.
Something odd about him avoiding doing the IDing. He had an excuse,
but I'm not convinced he was honest about it. However, it doesn't matter
before he IDed Oswald he saw him on TV twice and was told which he was in
the lineup by a detective. Whether he was honest about seeing Oswald in
the window or not, it's not acceptable when that happens.
Not to someone who is looking for excuses to dismiss evidence of Oswald's
guilt. No court would throw out that evidence simply because Brennan saw
Oswald on TV. There was nothing tainted about Brennan's ID of Oswald.
The judge wouldn't throw it out, but the defense attorney would make
whoever used it look stupid, and they wouldn't believe Brennan.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
He can't prove
to me that he was honest.
That is hardly a litmus test for the credibility of a witness.
He can't prove it to you either.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There's no way to do that. And the real kicker
is that Euins, a kid with good eyesight couldn't see past the window on
the 6th floor, and yet Brennan saw Oswald perfectly. It's hard to
swallow.
It's really hard to swallow when you refuse to swallow. You refuse to
accept any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt because you don't want to
believe it.
Nothing to do with it. The evidence is that Brennan either lied or was
a shill.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Under oath at trial he would have to answer honestly that LHO looked like
the sniper in the window.
Under oath before the WC he did just that.
Post by mainframetech
Brennan would also answer honestly he saw LHO
Post by claviger
on TV and at the line-up. He would be asked why he didn't ID him at the
line-up and would give an honest answer he was fearful of retribution for
his family. This is what juries are for. They must analyze the veracity
of the witness. At that point in time the DPD had no way to isolate or
sequester numerous witnesses in protective custody. It would be up to the
jury to decide if he was a believable witness. Or it would be up to a lawyer to sway the jury into looking at the situation and seeing that there were circumstances that gave Brennan an edge in IDing the shooter, who wasn't at the window anyway.
The jury would have convicted Oswald with or without Brennan's testimony.
Brennan didn't testify at the mock trial held in London yet Bugliosi
easily obtained a conviction against one of the best defense attorney's of
his time.
All the evidence wasn't known at that time. If it had been, Oswald
would have been freed of the JFK killing.
Chris
No, silly. Wade could have convicted a ham sandwich. Oswald would have
easily been convicted and then his sentence overturned on appeal. He
would have been a cause celebre.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-09 00:58:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
There is no doubt that Brennan saw a man in the window.
We can be sure he knew the difference between a man and a woman.
But we don't know which man he saw.
Maybe he could tell the difference between a black man and a white man
so it is more likely that he saw a white man.
But we know he didn't see the man shooting.
The man may have been a shooter.
Post by bigdog
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
Your logic stinks and so do you.
BOZ
2017-05-09 21:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
There is no doubt that Brennan saw a man in the window.
We can be sure he knew the difference between a man and a woman.
But we don't know which man he saw.
Maybe he could tell the difference between a black man and a white man
so it is more likely that he saw a white man.
But we know he didn't see the man shooting.
The man may have been a shooter.
Post by bigdog
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
Your logic stinks and so do you.
We do know. We do know that it was Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 15:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
There is no doubt that Brennan saw a man in the window.
We can be sure he knew the difference between a man and a woman.
But we don't know which man he saw.
Maybe he could tell the difference between a black man and a white man
so it is more likely that he saw a white man.
But we know he didn't see the man shooting.
The man may have been a shooter.
Post by bigdog
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
Your logic stinks and so do you.
We do know. We do know that it was Oswald.
You ASSuME because you can't prove.
donald willis
2017-05-09 02:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
If there were no doubt that Oswald shot JFK, alt.assassination.jfk would
not be here....
Anthony Marsh
2017-05-10 02:20:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by bigdog
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by donald willis
Post by donald willis
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
The sniper "steadied the rifle against the cornice". Then he wasn't in
the "sniper's nest", where a box would have interfered with this
action....
dcw
And if perchance one notes that Brennan's book was written long after the
fact.... During his '64 Commission testimony he said that he did NOT see a
box on the window ledge. Again, his sniper was NOT in the "nest"....
dcw
Reporter Hugh Aynesworth in "Eyewitness to History."
"I saw Brennan talking to two officers and tried to poke my nose into
their conversation. "I saw him up there in the window," I heard him say as
he pointed toward Oswald's sniper nest. "No doubt he was the one. He
wasn't even in much of a hurry."
One cop asked if Brennan could describe the shooter. "Of course", he
answered, "I saw him real good."
There is no doubt that Brennan saw the shooter and there is no doubt the
shooter was Oswald, therefore it logically follows that there is no doubt
Brennan saw Oswald.
If there were no doubt that Oswald shot JFK, alt.assassination.jfk would
not be here....
Do you think it is possible to discuss ANY assassination which we can
all agree was not a conspiracy? Can you think of any?
mainframetech
2017-04-30 00:12:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Brennan/Brennan_book.html
Ah, good! You put out Brennan's autobiography. He tells how he was
able to ID Oswald with the help of the TV and the local police.

Brennan saw Oswald on TV twice before he identified him, and then when
he went down to do the lineup, a detective told him when he got there what
position Oswald was in the lineup. He managed to discredit himself as a
witness all in one page of his story.

Chris
Loading...