If one is going to assume that Brennan was blessed with exceptional distance vision and that therefore he could clearly see the person's face clearly from a distance of nearly half a football field (40 yards), then one must explain why Brennan said the man fired while standing up, which would have been impossible because the window was partially open (no higher than about waist level).
Healthy young observers may have a binocular acuity superior to 6/6; the limit of acuity in the unaided human eye is around 6/3–6/2.4 (20/10–20/8), although 6/3 was the highest score recorded in a study of some US professional athletes.[26] Some birds of prey, such as hawks, are believed to have an acuity of around 20/2;[27] in this respect, their vision is much better than human eyesight.
"Healthy young observer"? Brennan was 44 on the day of the shooting, and he required glasses.
There is no way of telling the distance between the TSBD window sills and the interior floors when viewing from the exterior of the building. Brennan assumed LHO was standing. And he assumed wrong.
Oh, come on. If he could see the man clearly enough to clearly see his face, he should have been able to tell rather easily whether the man was standing or kneeling. Go read Brennan's testimony. Brennan did not "assume" the man was standing: he said "he was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
I notice you did not address the point that Brennan said that the man did not rush off but lingered in the window for a bit, and that the man did not appear to be rushed at all--"he did not seem to be in any hurry." Nor did you address the point that Brennan said the man was wearing light-colored clothing, which is not the clothing that we know Oswald was wearing at work that day.
Here is another problem with Brennan's testimony, if you are using him to support the WC's story: Brennan said he could see "70 to 85 percent" of the rifle and that
he saw no scope on the rifle.
So Brennan saw the wrong kind of rifle, saw a man dressed in the wrong color of clothing, and said the man lingered at the window as if trying to make sure he had hit his target and then casually stepped away. None of this fits with the WC's version of events.
Also, at first Brennan estimated that he was only 75 feet from the window, and then he said he "calculated" that he was 93 feet from the window. The FBI determined that Brennan was 120.2 feet from the window.
Just like I believe that Mark Lane assumed wrong about Brennan identifying himself to reporters on 11/22/63. There are other ways that his last name could have appeared in the DMN article on 11/23/63, which I have already explained.
Really? I mean, really? If you look at videos of interviews that reporters did with witnesses that day, you'll see that one of the first things the reporters did was, logically enough, to ask the person for their name. They asked them who they were and where they had been standing during the shooting. Just common sense. But you have to assume that not one of the reporters with whom Brennan spoke that day asked him for his name, and of course that Brennan did not volunteer his name.
And I ask again, why did Brennan volunteer the information to the DPD that same afternoon, in writing, that he believed he could recognize the man in the window if he saw him again, if he was so afraid for his life? If Brennan truly feared for his life, the last thing he would have done would have been to say such a thing. He would not have given any inkling that he could ID the guy if he saw him again.
And I notice that you still have not explained why it took the FBI several weeks to get Brennan to ID the man as Oswald. What took so long?
