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

[Charles Collins]

SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”

This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was  3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.

Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.

Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.

LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?

You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.

Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?

Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.

Sigh. . . .  Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.

Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.

So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?

You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.

Even Belin seemed to have doubts about Brennan's excuse for taking several weeks to ID Oswald as the man he'd seen:

Mr. BELIN. Now, is there anything else you told the officers at the time of the lineup?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, I told them I could not make a positive identification.
Mr. BELIN. When you told them that, did you ever later tell any officer or investigating person anything different?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. When did that happen?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe some days later--I don't recall exactly--and I believe the Secret Service man identified hisself as being Williams, I believe, from Houston. I won't swear to that-whether his name was Williams or not.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. BRENNAN. And he could have been an FBI. As far as I remember, it could have been FBI instead of Secret Service.
But I believe it was a Secret Service man from Houston.
And I--
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you and what did you say to him?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, he asked me he said, "You said you couldn't make a positive identification."
He said, "Did you do that for security reasons personally, or couldn't you?"
And I told him I could with all honesty, but I did it more or less for security reasons--my family and myself.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean by security reasons for your family and yourself?
Mr. BRENNAN. I believe at that time, and I still believe it was a Communist activity, and I felt like there hadn't been more than one eyewitness, and if it got to be a known fact that I was an eyewitness, my family or I, either one, might not be safe.
Mr. BELIN. Well, if you wouldn't have identified him, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. Beg pardon?
Mr. BELIN. If you would not have identified that man positively, might he not have been released by the police?
Mr. BRENNAN. No. That had a great contributing factor--greater contributing factor than my personal reasons was that I already knew they had the man for murder, and I knew he would not be released.
Mr. BELIN. The murder of whom?
Mr. BRENNAN. Of Officer Tippit.

Belin then asked Brennan what had caused him to no longer be afraid to positively ID Oswald, and Brennan said Oswald's death "relieved" his fear "quite a bit":

Mr. BELIN. Well, what happened in between to change your mind that you later decided to come forth and tell them you could identify him?
Mr. BRENNAN. After Oswald was killed, I was relieved quite a bit that as far as pressure on myself of somebody not wanting me to identify anybody, there was no longer that immediate danger.

But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.

Sigh. . . .  You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.

SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”



If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.


This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was  3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.

How much of the man did Brennan testify he saw? Waist up. There is no way he would know for sure the man was standing up. He assumed he was.


Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.


You have it timed that close eh? You are just kidding yourself.


Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.


You present one lame excuse after another for disbelieving the possible. He could have put his shirt back on while walking across the sixth floor. Or while on the stairs.  He did not need to stop everything to do that. You acting like we need to add extra time to the scenario is ridiculous.


LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?

Yes, we are talking about the same guy. I believe that he only leaned forward when he wanted to see what was going on. And stayed mostly out of view otherwise. He had not conceived the plan to assassinate JFK when the backyard photos were taken. And I do not know what you are talking about directing the police to the room where they were stored. You need to explain that one. The same goes with dropping the card.


You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.

Use the evidence to rule out the scenarios that are impossible. And then tell me what you think happened.


Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?


Your biased opinion is showing. I have addressed the issues you have brought up with credible, rational explanations.


Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.


Yeah, he didn't get the serial number either... bummer...



Sigh. . . .  Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.


Again, provide any evidence that Brennan even spoke to a reporter on 11/22/63. According to what is written in his book he was trying to avoid them. Hugh Aynesworth was nearby and writes an account of that time period that agrees with Brennan's. You are the one being ridiculous by insisting otherwise.


Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.

So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?

You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.


Brennan reluctantly got involved because he saw the police looking in the wrong places and didn't want the assassin to get away. He believed that he could do so confidentially. And that his identity could be kept from the public for the time being, until the danger had subsided. Just because he acted differently than you might have under the same circumstances is not a legitimate reason to just toss everything he said out the window.



But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.

Sigh. . . .  You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.


That claim was made in Brennan's book. I believe that Brennan would have known for sure what his reasons were. The ridiculous claim that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63 by Mark Lane in his book is only his assumption. The footnote specifies the DMN article as his evidence. That article apparently doesn't say where the name came from or that Brennan even talked to reporters that day. I will take my chances that Brennan's account is correct. You can go on deluding yourself. But do not expect me to agree with any such weak argument.

[Martin Weidmann]

SMH. Really? What's the substantive difference? There is no meaningful difference in this context. He was testifying about what he saw. So just because he used the phrase "appeared to me" does not mean he was somehow qualifying his account. How about if Brennan had said "he looked like he was standing up"? With Brennan's supposedly exceptionally good distance vision, the man appeared to be standing up. That is no different than simply saying “When I saw him, he was standing.”



If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.


This gives new meaning to the terms "labored" and "strained." Stop and think about what you just said. You are implying that Brennan assumed that the window sill was  3-4 feet above the floor, and that Brennan could not tell the difference between a man standing up and aiming a rifle out a window and a man sitting down and necessarily bent over while aiming the rifle.

How much of the man did Brennan testify he saw? Waist up. There is no way he would know for sure the man was standing up. He assumed he was.


Yes, absolutely, because Oswald would not have had 2-3 seconds to spare. Again, why didn't Jarman hear anyone moving around in the sniper's nest above him after the shots were fired? He could hear shells hitting the floor during the shooting, so he should have easily been able to hear any marked movement above him after the firing stopped, but he said he heard none, and Williams did not mention hearing any movement above him after the shots.


You have it timed that close eh? You are just kidding yourself.


Really?! So you want to add time for him to put his shirt back on?! Nobody who saw a man in that window described seeing him take any such action. Again, Brennan said "he did not seem to be in a hurry," but the WC's reenactment showed that he would have had to be in a very big hurry to get down to the second floor in time to be seen by Baker. He had no time to linger 2-3 seconds at the window, and he certainly had no time to put a shirt back on.


You present one lame excuse after another for disbelieving the possible. He could have put his shirt back on while walking across the sixth floor. Or while on the stairs.  He did not need to stop everything to do that. You acting like we need to add extra time to the scenario is ridiculous.


LOL! Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly "leaned forward to look out the window"? Are we talking about the same guy who allegedly had photos taken of himself holding the alleged murder weapon and then directed police to the room where they were stored? Are we talking about the same guy who supposedly carried around and then somehow dropped a Hidell card on the day of the shooting, an ID card in the same name as the name he allegedly used to order the Carcano? Are we talking about the same guy?

Yes, we are talking about the same guy. I believe that he only leaned forward when he wanted to see what was going on. And stayed mostly out of view otherwise. He had not conceived the plan to assassinate JFK when the backyard photos were taken. And I do not know what you are talking about directing the police to the room where they were stored. You need to explain that one. The same goes with dropping the card.


You don't know if Oswald was ever even at the Tippit shooting scene that day, not to mention the contradictions about the jacket's color. You simply assume he shot Tippit and proceed from there.

Use the evidence to rule out the scenarios that are impossible. And then tell me what you think happened.


Then why have you been unable to provide credible, rational explanations for the problems with Brennan's testimony? Are you aware that we have known for years that even some WC staffers doubted Brennan's testimony? Why do you suppose that the HSCA Report does not even mention Brennan once?


Your biased opinion is showing. I have addressed the issues you have brought up with credible, rational explanations.


Now you are being misleading. Just seconds before Brennan said that, he specified that he did not see a scope on the rifle:

Mr. BELIN. Could you tell whether or not it had any kind of a scope on it?
Mr. BRENNAN. I did not observe a scope.

SMH. So Brennan sees a guy pointing a rifle at the motorcade but didn't bother to take a good look at it, if nothing else to make sure he was seeing a rifle? Plus, a scope is very hard to miss on a rifle. A rifle with a scope looks rather different than a rifle without a scope.


Yeah, he didn't get the serial number either... bummer...



Sigh. . . .  Well, when you speaking with reporters, most people would say you were being interviewed by reporters. You are parsing words to the point of silliness.


Again, provide any evidence that Brennan even spoke to a reporter on 11/22/63. According to what is written in his book he was trying to avoid them. Hugh Aynesworth was nearby and writes an account of that time period that agrees with Brennan's. You are the one being ridiculous by insisting otherwise.


Furthermore, Brennan told the WC that jumped up during the shooting because it occurred to him that there might be other gunmen and a plot:

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe you said that after the last shot you jumped off this masonry structure on which you were sitting. Why did you jump off?
Mr. BRENNAN. Well, it occurred to me that there might be more than one person, that it was a plot which could mean several people, and I knew beyond reasonable doubt that there were going to be bullets flying from every direction.

So if it occurred to him during the shooting that "it was a plot which could mean several people," why would he have talked with any reporters at all that afternoon? Why would he have said one word to the police about being able to ID the man in the window?

You just keep repeating this tale, as if repetition will make it come true. You cannot credibly explain the fact that he did not act like a man who did not want to ID Oswald because he feared retribution from accomplices.


Brennan reluctantly got involved because he saw the police looking in the wrong places and didn't want the assassin to get away. He believed that he could do so confidentially. And that his identity could be kept from the public for the time being, until the danger had subsided. Just because he acted differently than you might have under the same circumstances is not a legitimate reason to just toss everything he said out the window.



But that's ridiculous. Oswald was killed less than 48 hours after the assassination. Brennan didn't tell the FBI that he could positively ID Oswald until December 17, over three weeks after Oswald's death.

Sigh. . . .  You have no actual evidence that the FBI "let him down regarding his confidentiality" other than his very belated claim to this effect in his book. He said nothing--not one word--about this nonsense in his WC testimony.


That claim was made in Brennan's book. I believe that Brennan would have known for sure what his reasons were. The ridiculous claim that Brennan gave his name to reporters on 11/22/63 by Mark Lane in his book is only his assumption. The footnote specifies the DMN article as his evidence. That article apparently doesn't say where the name came from or that Brennan even talked to reporters that day. I will take my chances that Brennan's account is correct. You can go on deluding yourself. But do not expect me to agree with any such weak argument.

If you cannot see the difference, I cannot help you any further. You have your mind made up. You are extremely biased. And beyond hope.

There it is... the classic Collins response when he fails to convince with arguments. The irony is that Collins himself is just about the most biased person on the LN side. Not only has he made up his mind, but he will fight every word, every komma rather than conceed even the smallest point.

[Bill Chapman]

Yes

Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?

No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?

I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?

Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
> Is expecting ppl to include both views of Ce399 in a thread about Ce399 'whining' in your universe?

No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
> Just the ones where any given poster has posted only the side view and is claiming a pristine result

I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
> Are you claiming that merely 'being fired' would cause the damage seen at the base of the bullet? 

[Martin Weidmann]

Ok, so you've got an avatar which can be seen with every post your write. So why are you whining?
> Is expecting ppl to include both views of Ce399 in a thread about Ce399 'whining' in your universe?

Of course it is. And it's hypocritical as well... I have never seen you mentioning any evidence that supports the CT view.
Besides, the damage to CE399 is minimal. Everybody knows about it and it is of little significance to the discussion about that bullet

No need to... You are the one whining about it. So, how many pages will "please" his lordship?
> Just the ones where any given poster has posted only the side view and is claiming a pristine result

So, now you feel you have the right to tell other people how they should post?

I'm not even sure what your goddamned point is. The bullet now in evidence as CE399 has limited damage to it's butt due to being fired. So what?
> Are you claiming that merely 'being fired' would cause the damage seen at the base of the bullet?

 I'm no expert on weapons and bullets but I have spoken to enough people who are, to be convinced that there is nothing unusual about the condition of that bullet after it was fired. Are you claiming that damage to the butt was caused in another way?

[Bill Chapman]

Of course it is. And it's hypocritical as well... I have never seen you mentioning any evidence that supports the CT view.
Besides, the damage to CE399 is minimal. Everybody knows about it and it is of little significance to the discussion about that bullet
> The bullet exhibits a somewhat flattened side and butt-end. One can see in my avatar the notable difference between the perfectly round black circle in which it sits, and the (damaged) oval shape of the bullet's butt-end. This establishes that Ce399 did not emerge 'pristine' as CTers would have one believe.

So, now you feel you have the right to tell other people how they should post?
> I have the right to call people out when they attempt to mislead by posting only the side view in a discussion about minimal damage to Ce399

I'm no expert on weapons and bullets but I have spoken to enough people who are, to be convinced that there is nothing unusual about the condition of that bullet after it was fired. Are you claiming that damage to the butt was caused in another way?
There's definitely nothing unusual about CTers leaving out inconvenient evidence

[Dan O'meara]

The bullet is not 'pristine', pristine means 'in its original condition' which the bullet clearly is not. The bullet is obviously deformed. Why this can't be simply accepted is bewildering. Why it is taking up space on this thread is mystifying. It goes to show how entrenched a point of view can become. I'm assuming the word pristine was used because of the spectacularly minimal damage the bullet suffered causing all the injuries that it is credited with. The word is being used to highlight the lack of damage. The bullet is also not magic, it can't levitate or grant wishes, the word 'magic' in this instance is implying something else, just like the word 'pristine' is implying that anyone who believes that bullet shattered Connally's radius bone and emerged as 'pristine' as it did needs to up their meds.

[Michael T. Griffith]

By the way, are those of you who are relying on Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald aware of Brennan's behavior when the HSCA attempted to interview him and asked him to affirm the accuracy of his previous statements?

When the HSCA contacted Brennan, they were hoping to interview him at his home in Texas. But, according to an HSCA outside contact report dated March 13, 1978, Brennan "stated that the only way he will talk to anyone from this Committee, is if he is subpoenaed." A month later the committee asked him to reconsider and, when he refused, they informed him that he would be subpoenaed to testify. The HSCA contact report on Brennen recounted Brennan's reply:

"[Brennan said he] would not come to Washington and that he would fight any subpoena. And, in fact, Brennan was belligerent about not testifying. He stated that he would avoid any subpoena by getting his doctor to state that it would be bad for his health to testify about the assassination. He further told me that even if he was forced to come to Washington he would simply not testify if he didn't want to." (HSCA contact report, 4/20/78, Record No. 180-10068-10381)

Between May 15 and May 19, 1978, HSCA staffers made 11 attempts to present Brennan with previous statements he had made. They left a copy of his previous statements with him on May 19, along with a form that asked him to affirm that his previous statements were correct. But when the staffers returned a few days later to collect the form, they found that Brennan had refused to sign it. The HSCA went as far as granting Brennan immunity from prosecution, but he would not budge.

Now, gee, why do you suppose Brennan behaved in this manner and refused to affirm that his previous statements were accurate, even after he was granted immunity from prosecution?

[Bill Chapman]

By the way, are those of you who are relying on Howard Brennan's identification of Oswald aware of Brennan's behavior when the HSCA attempted to interview him and asked him to affirm the accuracy of his previous statements?

When the HSCA contacted Brennan, they were hoping to interview him at his home in Texas. But, according to an HSCA outside contact report dated March 13, 1978, Brennan "stated that the only way he will talk to anyone from this Committee, is if he is subpoenaed." A month later the committee asked him to reconsider and, when he refused, they informed him that he would be subpoenaed to testify. The HSCA contact report on Brennen recounted Brennan's reply:

"[Brennan said he] would not come to Washington and that he would fight any subpoena. And, in fact, Brennan was belligerent about not testifying. He stated that he would avoid any subpoena by getting his doctor to state that it would be bad for his health to testify about the assassination. He further told me that even if he was forced to come to Washington he would simply not testify if he didn't want to." (HSCA contact report, 4/20/78, Record No. 180-10068-10381)

Between May 15 and May 19, 1978, HSCA staffers made 11 attempts to present Brennan with previous statements he had made. They left a copy of his previous statements with him on May 19, along with a form that asked him to affirm that his previous statements were correct. But when the staffers returned a few days later to collect the form, they found that Brennan had refused to sign it. The HSCA went as far as granting Brennan immunity from prosecution, but he would not budge.

Now, gee, why do you suppose Brennan behaved in this manner and refused to affirm that his previous statements were accurate, even after he was granted immunity from prosecution?

On 5/1/78 Kenneth Klein received a letter from Dr. Eugene Mason (Brennan's doctor) stating that Brennan has a serious heart disease and recurrent peptic ulcer disease and is not physically able to come to Washington. He also said that Brennan could, if he was willing to do so, listen to a reading of his previous testimony at his home and declare whether or not the transcript was correct.

http://whokilledjfk.net/howard_brennan3.htm