Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence  (Read 4221 times)

Offline Walt Cakebread

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2018, 12:57:20 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Walt,

Howard was in a terrible position - damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

However, once committed, he had to carry the consequences. Did he seriously think a "Commie Conspiracy" was suddenly going to disappear once Lee was murdered in front of ~70 Law enforcement Officers on National TV?

I actually feel very sorry for him.

"Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful. He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half– open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled. He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street 60 feet or 18 metres below. When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.” He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.” Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth– floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor. He attended a line– up on the day of the assassination, but “said he was unable to make a positive identification,” despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television. A few weeks later, his memory improved and he informed the FBI that he could identify Oswald. The next month, he changed his mind again and “appeared to revert to his earlier inability to make a positive identification.” In the absence of any other plausible candidates, the Commission nominated Brennan as the source of the Dallas police radio despatcher’s description of the gunman, but his limited credibility as a witness raises uncomfortable questions about the actual source. The House Select Committee on Assassinations declined to use Howard Brennan’s testimony. 18

Bojczuk, Jeremy. 22 November 1963: A Brief Guide to the JFK Assassination (Kindle Locations 422-435). Boxgrove Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Thank you for taking the time to write and present your views.....It makes it a bit easier to debate and discuss your views.

I actually feel very sorry for him.

At one time I too felt sorry for Brennan...... But I no longer pity him because he capitulated to the authorities and decided to fatten his banlkaccount by allowing his name as the author for a book that is a pack of lies.

"Brennan, however, turned out to be unreliable and unhelpful.

Not if you adhere to his sworn affidavit for 11/22/63...... That affidavit is the truth.......

 He claimed that the gunman had been standing up when firing, although the half– open window required any gunman to have crouched or kneeled.

Brennan was NOT referring to the half open window at the SE corner....  and he clarified that he saw the man behind that SE window BEFORE the motorcade arrived.

He claimed to have seen the gunman’s trousers, which would not have been visible from Brennan’s viewpoint on the street 60 feet or 18 metres below.

Brennan saw the man in the light colored khaki clothing on several occasions BEFORE the motorcade arrived....and he saw him STANDING behind a window during the shooting  So who knows at what pint he saw the mans trousers.  However He DID see them and reported that the trousers were nearly white....Lee's trousers were dark gray.

When asked whether he had actually seen the firing of the rifle, he replied, “No.” He claimed that on hearing the first shot, “I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.”

I believe that trying to pinpoint things like the actual firing of the rifle are beyond debating....Who could remember exactly what happened at a precise moment during the event??  It not reasonable.   Brennan simply didn't know if he saw the rifle being fired...he said that he saw the man "aiming"   It's very common for a rifleman to use the rifle scope as a aid for observing something in the distance....  and I suspect that is what Brennan witnessed.


Brennan’s reaction to the first shot is visible on the Zapruder film: standing directly opposite the sixth– floor window, he watches Kennedy’s car go past him to his left, then from about frame 204 he in fact turns his head sharply to his right, away from the TSBD, rather than up toward the sixth floor.

Tony we're talking about mere seconds .......I doubt that anybody could pinpoint the exact second that something happened..... incidentally .....I doubt the Z film is accurate.   It's tainted....

He attended a line– up on the day of the assassination, but “said he was unable to make a positive identification,” despite already having seen Oswald’s picture on television.

That's correct as far as it goes.....   But the confrontation with the DPD was far more than a simple inability to be able to identify Lee Oswald as the man in the window....  Brennan told them that Lee Oswald WAS NOT the man.....(Brennan knew that before he went to the line up because he'd seen Lee on TV and knew that lee was not the man that he'd seen.)   The police tried to twist his arm and threaten him into putting the finger on Lee but he refused....The police became frustrated and wanted to know how he could be so certain that Lee wasn't the man and Brennan told them he knew that Lee was not the man because the man was dressed differently than Lee Oswald.   He said the man that he saw was wearing light colored khaki clothing but definitely not a suit.  The cops then told Brennan that Lee had gone home and changed his clothes...which was true ...but what the cops didn' ell Brennan was the fact that the clothes they had recovered wer NOT ligh colored khaki clothes.

A few weeks later, his memory improved and he informed the FBI that he could identify Oswald.

Yes that's true.....Funny how something like seeing the man that Brennan knew was being railroaded being shot down in cold blood while being escorted by the very men who he had argued with about the identity of the TSBD gunman....can cause an honest man to change his mind.


The next month, he changed his mind again and “appeared to revert to his earlier inability to make a positive identification.” In the absence of any other plausible candidates, the Commission nominated Brennan as the source of the Dallas police radio despatcher’s description of the gunman, but his limited credibility as a witness raises uncomfortable questions about the actual source. The House Select Committee on Assassinations declined to use Howard Brennan’s testimony. 18

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #70 on: May 12, 2018, 12:57:20 AM »


Offline Ross Lidell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #71 on: May 13, 2018, 11:43:53 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
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?

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

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

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.

Still with the hair-splitting John!!!

You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.

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

Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.

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


My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963. The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.

The fact is: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins and Bob Jackson saw "someone" shooting a rifle from an upper floor of the TSBD.

-- Brennan described a man.
-- Euins thought it was man.
-- Jackson would have assumed it was man*.

* All previous assassins (and those whom attempted assassinations) of US Presidents were men. Assassinating US President's was a "man" thing.

Man-up John and admit you are wrong.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #72 on: May 14, 2018, 11:28:37 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Brennan told them that Lee Oswald WAS NOT the man.....(Brennan knew that before he went to the line up because he'd seen Lee on TV and knew that lee was not the man that he'd seen.)   The police tried to twist his arm and threaten him into putting the finger on Lee but he refused....The police became frustrated and wanted to know how he could be so certain that Lee wasn't the man and Brennan told them he knew that Lee was not the man because the man was dressed differently than Lee Oswald.   He said the man that he saw was wearing light colored khaki clothing but definitely not a suit.  The cops then told Brennan that Lee had gone home and changed his clothes...which was true ...but what the cops didn' ell Brennan was the fact that the clothes they had recovered wer NOT ligh colored khaki clothes.

Cool story, bro.


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #73 on: May 14, 2018, 11:36:57 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Still with the hair-splitting John!!!

You reveal a lack of "an honest search for the truth" in your absurd ripostes. There is a difference between a description that does not fit your idea of accuracy and intentionally making a deceitful statement.

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

Brennan saw a man shooting. He provided a description to law enforcement in Dealey Plaza.

No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Quote
My statement about people assuming that an assassin would most likely be a man mentioned women circa 1963.
The evil Ms Fromme attempted to assassinate President Gerald Ford in 1975--more than a decade later than '63. Really John: you must be more accurate in your statements or people will accuse you of lying.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

And he did not.

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.

You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2018, 03:29:05 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

And he did not.

Mr. JACKSON - Right here approximately. And as we heard the first shot, I believe it was Tom Dillard from the Dallas News who made some remark as to that sounding like a firecracker, and it could have been somebody else who said that. But someone else did speak up and make that comment and before he actually the sentence we heard the other two shots. Then we realized or we thought it was gunfire, and then we could not at that point see the President's car. We were still moving slowly, and after the third shot the second two shots seemed much closer together than the first shot, than they were to the first shot. Then after the last shot, I guess all of us were just looking all around and I just looked straight up ahead of me which would have been looking at the School Book Depository and I noticed two Negro men in a window straining to see directly above them, and my eyes followed right on up to the window above them and I saw the rifle, or what looked like a rifle approximately half of weapon, I guess I saw. and just looked at it, it was drawn fairly slowly back into the building, and I saw no one in the window with it. I didn't even see a form in the window.

You're wrong, Ross. Admit it.

No he didn't.  He said he saw a man taking aim with a rifle.  Even that much is doubtful, but if he didn't see a rifle discharge, he didn't see a man shooting.

Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.

Do you have some actual data that shows that people would assume in 1963 that an assassin would most likely be a man, or did you just pull that out of your azz?  It doesn't matter anyway.  Jackson either saw a man shooting a rifle or he did not.

I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".

So Euins and Jackson saw "a person" firing a rifle from the TSBD. A rifle does not fire itself John.

In 1963, the notion that the shooter would have been a woman was incredibly unlikely. The average witness would have assumed it was a man. It turned out to be a man.

You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.

I'm keen to know John: were you honestly mistaken or lying?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #74 on: May 16, 2018, 03:29:05 AM »


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #75 on: May 16, 2018, 08:54:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Silly... actually ultra-silly hairsplitting John. How often do shooters "take aim" and not "pull the trigger"... which means shoot.

You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.

And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time.  Are you serious?  Go talk to some hunters.

Quote
I don't need data John... just knowledge and understanding "the way it was back then".

In other words you completely made it up.

Quote
You have not responded to my noting your error positing Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin before 1963.... though her attempted crime occurred in 1975.

I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963.  But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #76 on: May 16, 2018, 09:44:35 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You're equating assuming something happened" with seeing something happen which is highly dishonest.

And yes, people take aim without taking the shot all the time.  Are you serious?  Go talk to some hunters.

In other words you completely made it up.

I never said that Squeaky Fromme was an example of a female assassin before 1963.  But I'm curious to know exactly how your made up "the way is was back then" was so radically altered between 1963 and 1975.

I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).

Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.

You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2724
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2018, 10:47:32 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't need to explain what happened between 1963 and 1975. My statement that assassins of US Presidents were overwhelmingly likely to be males in 1963 was based on the historical record since 1865 (Booth/Lincoln).

And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

Quote
Aaaagh... there were shots being fired in Dealey Plaza when Euins and Jackson saw a rifle.
There were shots being fired when Brennan saw a man aiming a rifle.
Your argument that the rifle seen by Euins, Jackson and Brennan was only aimed but not fired is absurd.

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

Quote
You named Squeaky Fromme as an example of a female assassin to counter my point that in 1963 people would assume that an assassin was a man. Fromme did not try to kill President Gerald Ford until 1975 (12 years later). Let's agree that you "implied" that Squeaky Fromme's attempt to assassinate President Ford (1975) proved that my statement about "people assuming that assassins were males" was wrong. You accused me of being a liar. Using the same parameters: your implied statement utilizing Fromme as an example was either an error or a lie. Which was it John... an error or a lie?

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #77 on: May 16, 2018, 10:47:32 PM »


Offline Jack Trojan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Thomas Arthur Vallee
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #78 on: May 16, 2018, 10:57:30 PM »
For debaters who play fast and loose with logic buzzwords

Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Proof: evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement.
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case.
Truth: the quality or state of being true.
Speculation: the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Proposition: a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.
Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
Conjecture: an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Judgment: the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
Conclusion: a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
Theory: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something.
Hypothesis: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
Supposition: an uncertain belief.
Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
Validity: the quality of being logically or factually sound.
Soundness: the quality of being based on valid reason or good judgment.
Cogency: the quality of being clear, logical, and convincing.
Lucidity: clarity of expression.
Intelligible: ability to comprehend.
Comprehend: grasp mentally; understand.
Fallacy: a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument.

Offline Ross Lidell

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • JFK : Profile In Courage
Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #79 on: May 16, 2018, 11:42:44 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And therefore somebody who saw a rifle (or a projection) saw a man firing it whether they actually did or not?  Really?

That's not my argument -- that's your strawman.  You said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD".  The amount of gymnastics you're doing to try to rhetorically justify that is amazing.  No, Ross, you're wrong.  Brennan didn't see a man firing a rifle.  Jackson did not see a man at all.  He said so.

It doesn't matter what you guess that 1963 people would assume.  Jackson did NOT see a man firing a rifle.  And no amount of gymnastics will change the fact that Jackson said "I saw no one in the window".  And it's mind boggling that you would try to claim otherwise.

I'm not responsible for what you think I implied.  You are a liar, because you said "several witnesses saw a man firing a rifle from the TSBD", and continue to defend that in spite of all evidence to the contrary.  It's not splitting hairs -- it's called being truthful.  If you can't even tell the truth about the evidence, then where does that leave you?

John... set aside your hair-splitting contrariness for a moment.

Who do you think was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12:30 CST on 22 November 1963?

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: Three Tests Proved Oswald's Innocence
« Reply #79 on: May 16, 2018, 11:42:44 PM »