The Nest

[Charles Collins]

No, Brennan only saw the person with the rifle for a few seconds. The question is, did he know it was the same person he saw earlier without a rifle (based on what?) or did he just assume it?

If you are suggesting he saw two (or more?) different men, then you really should consider providing some evidence of that. Brennan indicates that it was only one man.

VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22 day of November A.D. 1963 personally appeared Howard Leslie Brennan, Address 6814 Woodard, Dallas, Texas Age 44 , Phone No. EV 1-2713
Deposes and says:

I am presently employed by the Wallace and Beard Construction Company as a Steam fitter and have been so employed for about the past 7 weeks. I am working on a pipe line in the Katy Railroad yards at the West end of Pacific Street near the railroad tracks. We had knocked off for lunch and I had dinner at the cafeteria at Record and Main Street and had come back to see the President of the United States. I was sitting on a ledge or wall near the intersection of Houston Street and Elm Street near the red light pole. I was facing in a northerly direction looking across the street from where I was sitting. I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east endof [sic] the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definately [sic] not a suit. I proceeded to watch the President's car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President's back was in line with the last windows I have previously described I heard what I thought was a back fire. It run [sic] in my mind that it might be someone throwing firecrackers out the window of the red brick building and I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again.

/s/ H. L. Brennan

/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

[John Iacoletti]

I know what Brennan said. I’m wondering on what basis he determined it was the same person.

[Charles Collins]

I know what Brennan said. I’m wondering on what basis he determined it was the same person.

Why are you suggesting that he couldn’t determine it was the same person?   

[John Iacoletti]

Based on how obscured a person in the position of firing the head shot would be from Brennan’s position, I don’t see a reasonable basis for that determination.

[Charles Collins]

Based on how obscured a person in the position of firing the head shot would be from Brennan’s position, I don’t see a reasonable basis for that determination.

Keeping in mind the circumstances, how “obscured” would you suggest that person would need be in order to not be able to determine it was the same person? Also, I suggest that concealed (or obstructed from view) might be a better word than obscured for this situation.

[John Iacoletti]

Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.

Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?

[Charles Collins]

Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.

Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?

I didn't think that you would answer the question. 

[Charles Collins]

Look at your re-creation. You’re in profile. The entire bottom of your face is obstructed. There’s a rifle up to your face. Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors. Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.

Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?

You’re in profile.

Technically no. A profile is at a 90-degree angle. This is less than 45-degrees. This makes a big difference according to this study.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042698909002557


The entire bottom of your face is obstructed.

Only a very small portion. So what? If you think that small amount makes a significant difference, this study suggests otherwise.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.201169


There’s a rifle up to your face.

So what? It is on the opposite side and isn’t obstructing any of it.   



Only a tiny patch of your shirt is visible and you’re wearing bright, contrasting colors.

It is a matter of lighting and resulting shadows. When the referenced photo was taken, I didn’t yet have the lighting set up to simulate the actual lighting at 12:30 pm on 11/22/63 in Dealey Plaza. And, when the photo website I use becomes useable again, I will post some photos that demonstrate revised lighting to show that the angle of the sun at 12:30 pm on 11/22.63 reduces those shadows. Plus a thinner arm without a loose fitting shirt sleeve would reduce the shadows further.


Couple that with Brennan’s actual distance.

Already addressed distance. It isn’t the barrier that you insinuate.



Brennan somehow thought he saw this person from the belt up at the time of the shot. I don’t see how that is remotely possible, so what else did he imagine/embellish?


Mr. BELIN. At the time you saw this man on the sixth floor, how much of the man could you see?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I could see at one time he came to the window and he sat sideways on the window sill. That was previous to President Kennedy getting there. And I could see practically his whole body, from his hips up. But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up.


I will show you, with photographic evidence, that it is possible. Unfortunately we have to wait until the photo sharing website is useable again. I think Brennan is “guesstimating” (because he must not have remembered exactly how much of the man he could see) when he says “a possibility.” But it appears to me (from my experiments) that Brennan saw almost down to the belt, but not quite.