Who do you believe?

[Wesley Johnson]

I'll make you a deal.  I will name the witnesses who saw a second man if you name the witnesses who saw Oswald.  Deal?

 I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.   

[John Iacoletti]

 I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.

I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window.  Hint:  Worrell was not one of them.  But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace.  So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.

It's just Brennan then, right?  And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right?  Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable?  I don't.  Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't.  For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing?  How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up?  How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?

The people who claimed to have seen two men:

- Arnold Rowland
- Carolyn Walther
- Ruby Henderson
- Norman Similas
- Johnny Powell

[Martin Weidmann]

 I said "saw the gunman" in the window. Okay, James Worrell was right below the 6th floor and when the shooting started he looked up and saw the gun barrel sticking out, Amos Euins looked up and watched the gunman as he was shooting, Howard Brennan saw the gunman, as well, as the shooting took place. Brennan at first said he couldn't id Oswald but later said that he could have id'd Oswald and that he had just been scared to id him. I already know some of the names you are going to cite John. Did any of them see this second man shooting? The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.

Did any of them see this second man shooting?

If there was a second man, why does it even matter if he was shooting or not? Do you really think that if somebody is standing next to a gun man who is killing somebody is just an innocent bystander?

The importance of this is that witnesses saw the gunman in the 6th floor window and with the mountain of evidence against Oswald it is clear he did it.

First of all, this is a massive leap of faith. The only person who actually claimed he saw Oswald, and not somebody else, at the 6th floor window is Brennan and there are too many problems with his story to be credible on it's own.

Secondly, there is no mountain of evidence against Oswald. I know LNs like to throw that expression about, but in reality all these massive investigations have ever brought up, especially in the murder of Kennedy, is a circumstantial case against Oswald and a very weak one at that.

[Mike Orr]

If you believe that Oswald was a lone assassin then there should be no problems in letting all of the evidence be seen and not wait for 75 years to release all the files pertaining to the  JFK case. I feel that there are people who thought that the Assassination of JFK would just blow over in a few years and it would be looked at like a piece of history that might be talked about in a History class in school. Wait 75 years and the majority of those who talk about the case would be dead. Does anyone know of any person who has read the 26 volumes of the Warren Report . I don't ! The Assassination seemed to be on a slippery slope right off the bat. One shooter , more than one shooter, certain placements of wounds , different placements of wounds. Why would a group of people say they saw one thing and a different group of people say they saw something totally different. Ceremonial casket , shipping casket. One thing I feel strong about is that the United States of America did not kill its President . Whoever killed JFK had a reason that they thought was strong enough to take him out of power. I will not put the Assassination of JFK on the people of the United States . The War Machine made money doing what they do best and that was being at war !

[Jerry Organ]

I already told you in the "Oswald probably did it" thread who the 4 people were who said they saw a gunman in a window.  Hint:  Worrell was not one of them.  But when the topic of Mac Wallace came up, you asked what witnesses said they saw Mac Wallace.  So it's fair to ask you then what witnesses said they saw Lee Oswald.

It's just Brennan then, right?  And that was some time later after not identifying him in the lineup, right?  Do you consider his change of heart to be reliable?  I don't.  Do you think that the details that Brennan described in great detail both in his testimony and in his book were things that he actually could or did see? I don't.  For example, how did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from where he was sitting and see enough of him to estimate his height, weight, and clothing? 

You have this tiresome obsession with Brennan. He saw different parts of Oswald over the course of two sightings.

How did he see a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up? 

He couldn't. His affidavit says:

    "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."

Cherry-picking his testimony gets one this:

    "But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up."

Which supposedly you take to mean him seeing "a gunman in firing position for the head shot from the belt up". Yet a review of his affidavit shows he meant that at the time of the final shot, he saw more of the assassin because the gunman stood up and stepped back.

How did he see 70-85% of the gun and not see a scope (if it was C2766)?

The scope is black and against a dark background. And the rifle is at an oblique angle to Brennan.

[John Iacoletti]

You have this tiresome obsession with Brennan. He saw different parts of Oswald over the course of two sightings.

How did he know it was the same person?

Cherry-picking his testimony gets one this:

    "But at the time that he was firing the gun, a possibility from his belt up."

That's not a cherry-pick.  "At the time that he was firing the gun" is not ambiguous.  You're changing it to mean something else because you want it to mean something else.  Nothing more.  You're the one who's cherry-picking what you like out of his affidavit and ignoring his testimony which says something different.  Besides, he doesn't ever mention in his affidavit seeing the man stand up, does he?  He thought he was standing the entire time.

At best, Brennan made different claims and gave different details every time he talked about what he saw, which makes him unreliable.  But you have to go with him because he's all you got.  That is what's tiresome.  If he had described an elderly negro, you would be attacking him like the WC did to Arnold Rowland.

The scope is black and against a dark background. And the rifle is at an oblique angle to Brennan.

Please explain.  What's the dark background?  And how oblique?  At the time of the head shot?

[Wesley Johnson]

Why do you believe that he was on the sixth floor when there is ZERO evidence for this contention?

The question is, "do you believe Oswald or Arnold"? Well which is it?

[Steve Thomas]

Who do you believe?

Everybody.

Steve Thomas