JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate > JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate

Myths and Errors in ABC's "Truth and Lies" Documentary

<< < (2/4) > >>

Jarrett Smith:

--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on December 14, 2025, 09:13:44 PM ---Brennan ran up to the police immediately after the shooting and told them he saw a shooter in the window. This was when many were running around the grassy knoll and fence area.

Did he make that all up? He didn't see anything? And then got lucky about a story he made up? Other people also saw a gunman and/or rifle. He lucked out by being right?



--- End quote ---

He may have seen the gun being drawn back in, but the rest of his story is wishy washy at best.

Bill Brown:

--- Quote from: Jarrett Smith on December 15, 2025, 05:43:04 AM ---He may have seen the gun being drawn back in, but the rest of his story is wishy washy at best.

--- End quote ---

Thatta way to back off your previous comment.  Nice.

Michael T. Griffith:

--- Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on December 14, 2025, 09:13:44 PM ---Brennan ran up to the police immediately after the shooting and told them he saw a shooter in the window. This was when many were running around the grassy knoll and fence area.

Did he make that all up? He didn't see anything? And then got lucky about a story he made up? Other people also saw a gunman and/or rifle. He lucked out by being right?
--- End quote ---

You must be kidding. You simply must be kidding. It's 2026, and you're still defending Brennan's "identification" of Oswald? Just unbelievable. Again, you guys exhibit a cult-like mentality when it comes to dealing with the JFK case. You just can't bring yourselves to deal with contrary evidence in a rational, credible manner.

Have you ever stood where Brennan was standing and looked up at the sixth-floor window at around noon? I have. I say "total hogwash" to anyone who claims they could see someone clearly enough from that position, at that distance, while he was firing from behind the window, to ID him in a police lineup. Hogwash. Even the HSCA's chief counsel, who was anxious to accept any evidence against Oswald, did not buy Brennan's ID.

For starters, Brennan couldn't even identify which sixth-floor window he supposedly observed, and the Zapruder film shows he was not even looking up until after Z207.

Brennan said the man he saw in the window was standing when he fired each of the shots, a fanciful proposition that even the Warren Commission rejected.

In addition, Brennan failed to positively identify Oswald in a police line-up on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture beforehand. Posner deals with this problem by advancing Brennan's claim that he could have identified Oswald in the November 22 line-up but was afraid to do so because he feared Oswald had accomplices who would kill him if he made the identification! Yet, on November 22, Brennan spoke with reporters about the assassination, and he even gave them his name--strange behavior for a man who supposedly feared he would be killed if he identified Oswald in a police station.

Moreover, Brennan said that when he looked up after the presidential limousine had driven away, he still saw Oswald in the sixth-floor window. Brennan added that Oswald remained at the window for at least a few seconds after that. Then, said Brennan, Oswald "simply moved away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision. He didn't appear to be rushed," recalled Brennan. Really? Do you buy that nonsense?

To have had any remote chance of getting to the sixth-floor lunchroom before Roy Truly reached the second-floor landing, Oswald could not possibly have lingered at the window in the manner described by Brennan.

Yet another often-overlooked problem with Brennan's testimony is that Brennan said he saw three-fourths of the rifle in the sixth-floor window and that he saw no scope on it. But if the rifle had been the alleged murder weapon, the scope would have been visible to Brennan.

Brennan may well have seen someone firing from the sixth-floor window, but the gunman he saw was not Oswald. Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day. He wore a brown, rust-colored shirt that day, and he was seen in that shirt in the second-floor lunchroom less than ninety seconds after the shots were fired.

I should add that two witnesses who saw the sixth-floor gunman said his hair was light-colored or light-brown, whereas Oswald's hair was solid brown and not light-colored at all.

Howard Brennan's specious ID of Oswald and his dubious claims about what he saw during and after the shooting are another prime example of why discussions with you guys go nowhere. You guys won't admit anything, no matter how obvious it is, if it contradicts the lone-gunman theory. It's 2026, and yet, incredibly, here you are still claiming that Howard Brennan's ID of Oswald was credible. Brennan's ID of Oswald would have been torn to shreds in a trial, partly for the reasons discussed above, as well as other reasons.

Zeon Mason:
Mr.Griffith, thanks for staying around on this forum and taking all the flak from LN diehards. For 25  years I have questioned the WC conclusion that Oswald was the only gunman and that he acted alone without any other persons having influenced him.

Although I have concluded that the WC theory is possible I have not seen any conclusive reenactment using an MC rifle in the same condition as the one found on the 6th floor TSBD at 1:20 pm by Boone and Weitzman.

I’ve seen attempts by shooters with newer better quality MC rifles with fully functional and better quality scopes that don’t drift or lose their zero after the 1st shot.

I’ve seen the CBS shooting trial which is a poorly done experiment which essentially “cheats” by allowing the shooters to know in advance exactly how the target will travel along a white rail and the target itself is a composite RED silhouette  figure stuck on a larger black square. The shooters were allowed to be already in position to aim at the target BEFORE it begins to move. There was no tree in the way. There was no requirement to use the stacked boxes as a firing platform. There was no attempt to have the shooter first sitting on a box and then lean over to rest the rifle on the 2 boxes just before beginning to aim and track the moving target.

I’ve seen the 2003 Beyond Conspiracy documentary that Peter Jennings hosted and I’ve found so many errors in that documentary that I’ve concluded it was an intentional fraud.

For me, there are just too many suspicious people interacting with Oswald, such as George Demorhenshield, Jack Ruby. Guy Bannister, and Alpha 66 members who just coincidentally are in a photo with Oswald.

Then as Mr Griffith keeps reminding us, the evidence itself is very suspect and I see no way to reconcile these discrepancies.

Most disturbingly is the  incompetence of Will Fritz ( or was it purposeful obfuscation?) in handling Oswald and failing to  make  a satisfactory recording of interviewing Oswald.

So I remain a Skeptic especially since new evidence seems to keep emerging such as the recording of LBJs advisor talking with Billy Sol Estes.

Benjamin Cole:
Are there photos of Alpha 66 members and LHO together? Are you speaking figuratively?

I think there is a possibility of a couple of guys, possibly Alpha 66'ers, somehow hoodwinking or cooperating with LHO in the JFKA. One was the GK smoke-and-bang show, and the other was a second shooter behind JFK.

But there is no hard evidence of this scenario. It is speculative. 

In general, I suspect a very small JFKA plot (three guys), which is why everything is vapors when it comes to explaining larger plots.

LHO's connections to G2 and KGB'ers have never been heavily researched, except somewhat by Gus Russo.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page