Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence

[John Iacoletti]

An intelligent and wise man readily admits that he is wrong when in fact he is in error.   Admitting to being being wrong is the mark of a wise man, for no human is ever always right.   

A man who cannot admit an error is a fool.....

You mean like admitting your error about "red signal rings"?

[Matt Grantham]

Do you now understand ?

 Walt Yes thank you I assume close comparisons were done on the original police photo of what they called a Mauser and no expert has been able to prove it was such a Mauser?

[Ross Lidell]

It's not splitting hairs.  You claimed that "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  That's just flat out false.

John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate.

-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".

[Matt Grantham]

John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial--in this debate)

-- Amos Euins saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

-- Bob Jackson saw the rifle which he assumed was fired by a person (likely a man).

Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

Note: I addressed the matter of "man or woman" because I anticipated more hair-splitting from you. Something like: "It could have been a woman shooter... you lied!!!".

 Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him

[John Iacoletti]

John,

Pleeeease! Rifles don't fire themselves. The witnesses who saw the rifle had just heard gunshots.

Please, Ross.  These people either saw a man firing a rifle or they did not.  Why do you need to embellish the evidence to make your arguments?

-- Howard Brennan saw the shooter firing the rifle. Whether or not he could accurately describe the appearance of the shooter is immaterial... in this debate)

Brennan said very specifically that he did not see the rifle discharge.

Why likely a man? Previous assassins of US Presidents were men. In 1963: people considered women as less criminally inclined than men. Odds were: the shooter in the TSBD was a man.

That's lying with vague statistics.  Two words:  Squeaky Fromme.

You're unquestionably nitpicking, John. Why is the question?

No, you're making claims that aren't true and trying to rationalize it with rhetoric -- which is pretty much par for the entire case against Oswald.

[John Iacoletti]

Maybe it is just me but if I see a gun in a window I don't take my eyes off of him

Brennan somehow managed to see the shooter fire the rifle and see JFK's head explode nearly simultaneously.

[Gary Craig]

The Warren Commission?s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16?21

"...Howard L. Brennan?one of the Commission?s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
 Markham?was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.

Yet Brennan?s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.

Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that ?Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.?

Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on ?The Assassin,? and its section titled ?Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,? we learn that ?Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,? while the Report is obliged to recognize that ?the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.?

The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."

[Matt Grantham]

The Warren Commission?s Case Against Oswald
By Leo Sauvage
The New Leader, 22 November 1965, pages 16?21

"...Howard L. Brennan?one of the Commission?s star witnesses, along with Marina Oswald and Helen
 Markham?was presented as an apparent discovery of the Commission.

Yet Brennan?s statements had appeared in the press from the start of the investigation in Dallas.

Nobody at that time took him seriously, and it was necessary to await the Warren Report to learn
that ?Howard L. Brennan made a positive identification of Oswald as being the person at the window.?

Leafing back in the Report to the chapter on ?The Assassin,? and its section titled ?Eyewitness
Identification of Assassin,? we learn that ?Brennan testified that the man in the window was standing
when he fired the shots,? while the Report is obliged to recognize that ?the half-open window, the
arrangement of the boxes, and the angle of the shots virtually preclude a standing position.?

The conclusion of the Commission is that Brennan was mistaken in saying that the man was standing,
but not mistaken in identifying (from the sidewalk opposite the building) the man sitting behind a
half-open sixth-floor window..."

 I am a little unclear on the last paragraph The WC is just asserting that the man was half sitting and ignoring the discrepancy while still ascribing the complete significance of a reliable ID of Oswald? Sounds about right