If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Peter Goth]

The WC said so? That's news to me.
Point out who in the WC knew anything about what FMJ ammo was designed to do.
Or that the Geneva/Copenhagen Conventions mandated that bullets must be jacketed.

Now see if you can figure out why they did that.

not likely on a half assed investigation.
good luck with that

[Peter Goth]

It actually over performed.

If it was even fired the 22nd.

You have evidence it was?

  don't expect much, perhaps some posey.
Or a cut & paste he didn't read.

[Charles Collins]

Here is a question and his answer....

Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.

The question relates to his travels after lunch. His response it to initially say what time it was. He remembered looking at a clock, tells them the time although this was not asked of him. Then he relates his journey.

The later after describing his final resting place on the wall Ford asks him about the time he took up position. We get the following.

Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12?
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.

Brennan is required to inform of the time he took up position and he gives an approximation. No mention of a time based on looking at his watch. This was the prefect chance to relate that information. But you prefer to take an memory published 20 years after the event as your gospel guide to the time.

If you could simply point to your spelling I would appreciate the opportunity to address each of them individually. A simple dismissal seems rather glib. I did not dismiss Brennan's book, merely the 12.22 memory you quoted from it. Why do you feel the need to attribute exaggerated claims against those who disagree with you? As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.

You are clearly not willing or able to discuss the questions raised surrounding the events. Your fear of simply answering a simple yes no question puts you amongst the category of DVP and Bill Brown who were similarly reluctant to embark on a journey of discovery. However I believe they refused to engage because they knew the destination. I think you simply fear the unknown. At least I can give JohnM credit for accepting my analysis, we simply differed on who Bonnie Ray saw on the 6th floor.

As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.

Fascinating analysis about Brennan's focus during the WC testimony....

And yet...

Mr. BELIN. And then after lunch, where did you go?
Mr. BRENNAN. I finished lunch and I glanced at a clock--I don't know exactly where the clock is located--and noticed it was 12:18. So I thought I still had a few minutes, that I might see the parade and the President. I walked to the corner of Houston and Elm.


Later he simply offers 12.22-12.24. No recollection of his watch at that point in 1964 under oath.

He offers this. He remembered a specific time leaving the cafe....go figure. He obviously lost focus later on and forgot about looking at his watch but remembered doing so for a book written years later.....of course. One published posthumously in 1987. Right on the money.

And you say I am full of it.....

It sure appears to me that you dismissed the book! You can claim anything you want back. But it ain’t gonna wash with me.

[Colin Crow]

As I have not dismissed "Brennan’s book" as you stated I will reclaim my open mindedness and lack of bias back.



It sure appears to me that you dismissed the book! You can claim anything you want back. But it ain’t gonna wash with me.

I only dismissed the anecdote that was not reported at the time but appeared 20 years later. It was the only thing you posted from the book. If you want to post more I am happy to evaluate with evidence he delivered under oath and at a time closer to the event.

I cannot what appears to you, just as you are unable/incapable to assess the state of my mind and biases. Just as you thought the Brennan memory was corroboration. You are not willing to venture where the assembled evidence leads. I suspected DVP and Bill Brown knew the endpoint and failed to engage at the outset because they knew where it led. You took a step into the unknown and are now unsure where the path leads. Better to stay safe than answer simple a simple question just in case. You never know what the next one might be.

[Colin Crow]

Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL

Seems the detail his wife wanted at the time either 1) were not referred to a few months alter to refresh his memory during his testimony before the WC and he failed to recall looking at his watch at 12.22 or 2) was a created recollection of something that never occurred.

Am I being less than open minded and biased? After all I did take Brennan’s contemporaneous testimony, delivered under oath, and found that the ambulance call and his observations about his journey largely substantiated his estimation of taking position on the wall about 12.22-12.24.

[Charles Collins]

Doesn't take much to convince a nutter -- DOH + ROFL

So, now you must think that Louise Brennan is in on the conspiracy and/or coverup?  That figures!

[Charles Collins]

Coverup, WTF are you talking about?

I don't believe that she would be signing her name to a book that she didn't believe told the truth.

As if Louise (or you) believing in a book has any evidentiary value -- DOH!

The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?

[Martin Weidmann]

The WC report and accompanying volumes are also books. So you believe that they don’t have any evidentiary value?

The WC report is an opinion (i.e. a prosecutorial circumstantial case) and as such hase no evidentiary value whatsoever. Anybody who believes an opinion can somehow be evidence needs his head examined.

Some of the material in the 26 volumes does have evidentiary value under the proviso that the actual evidence is sufficiently authenticated.