JFK Assassination Forum

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?

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.

The replies of WC apologists in this thread show how detached from reality and serious research they are, with some of them making the specious argument that the alleged murder weapon would not have needed to be zeroed (sighted-in). They do this because they know they can't explain when and how their alleged lone gunman, Oswald, could have zeroed the alleged murder rifle.

When using a scope, you absolutely must zero the rifle so that the scope's point of aim matches the point of impact at a specific distance. This process requires a stable shooting platform and patience. WC staffer Wesley Liebeler admitted that the supposed murder weapon would have had to be zeroed to be usable during the assassination.

In a tacit admission that the rifle's scope was problematic at best, some WC apologists have resorted to arguing that their alleged lone gunman used the iron sights, since zeroing the rifle would have been less crucial when using the iron sights. However, Marine rifle expert MSG Zahm explained to the WC that using the iron sights would have made the shooting feat even more difficult, not to mention the fact that in the WC's rifle test the shots fired when the iron sights were used were wildly inaccurate.

There is also the fact that not one of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test even came close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting performance, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary target boards, did not fire in the cramped conditions in which Oswald would have had to fire, and took as much time as they wanted for their first shot. This rifle test is crucial because it was the only one that used the alleged murder weapon.

Lone-gunman theorists just ignore these severe problems with their theory and continue to post reply after reply that assumes that Oswald was the gunman and that his alleged shooting feat would not have been very difficult at all.

In my post of LHO as possible G2 KGB asset I mentioned Russell's book.

I may add on how the Ambassador to MX and a guy who worked in State both though Cubans were running LHO, and their views were pretty much snuffed out back in the 1964.

That is what is often forgotten---the WC LN narrative snuffed out leads domestic...and foreign.

What researchers have identified this man as Robert Lesh as the Engineer man in DP? The man you've identified is not Robert Lesh.

https://jamesfday.medium.com/who-killed-robert-a-lesh-7360e52dea1c

Thanks Paul, I am trying to find out if the man in the engineer’s hat in the Dorman image has been identified. The A.I. response indicated he was Robert Lesh. That response doesn’t say which researchers identified him. It doesn’t surprise me that A.I. could be wrong. I have seen other instances where it was incorrect. I will change the image that I labeled accordingly.