Discussion:
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
(too old to reply)
Donald Willis
2024-02-04 19:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477

I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD.  Consider:  In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here.  These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below.  The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor.  But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows?  Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it.  The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams.  Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A".  And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.  

dcw
Bud
2024-02-04 19:57:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Willis
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD. Consider: In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here. These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below. The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor. But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows? Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it. The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams. Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A". And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."

-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
Post by Donald Willis
dcw
Donald Willis
2024-02-04 23:19:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Donald Willis
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD. Consider: In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here. These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below. The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor. But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows? Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it. The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams. Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A". And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
Post by Donald Willis
dcw
Yeah -- he also swore in that affidavit & his testimony that he could somehow guess the guy's height & weight. But FBI dispatches of the time reveal that his & Sawyer's info came from a witness who saw someone behind the depository, with a Winchester or 20--20. They got Brennan to lie about the height & weight, as well as the floor #, if not the type of rifle. Bud, clueless to the end of acj...

dcw
Bud
2024-02-05 00:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Donald Willis
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD. Consider: In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here. These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below. The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor. But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows? Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it. The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams. Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A". And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
Post by Donald Willis
dcw
Yeah -- he also swore in that affidavit & his testimony that he could somehow guess the guy's height & weight.
Non sequitur.

As usual, you flit away elsewhere.
But FBI dispatches of the time reveal that his & Sawyer's info came from a witness who saw someone behind the depository, with a Winchester or 20--20. They got Brennan to lie about the height & weight, as well as the floor #, if not the type of rifle.
And yet you continue to use things Brennan said in support of premises. Strange.
Bud, clueless to the end of acj...
Don Willis, treating the assassination as a creative writing exercise right to the end.

Interesting how your ideas always get more and more complex and fantastic as you create.

"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for troublesome data, a red flag should be raised, indicating it`s time for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood." -Bob Novella
dcw
Donald Willis
2024-02-05 03:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Donald Willis
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD. Consider: In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here. These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below. The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor. But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows? Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it. The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams. Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A". And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
Post by Donald Willis
dcw
Yeah -- he also swore in that affidavit & his testimony that he could somehow guess the guy's height & weight.
Non sequitur.
If he swore falsely in one case, odds are he swore falsely in another.
Post by Bud
As usual, you flit away elsewhere.
But FBI dispatches of the time reveal that his & Sawyer's info came from a witness who saw someone behind the depository, with a Winchester or 20--20. They got Brennan to lie about the height & weight, as well as the floor #, if not the type of rifle.
And yet you continue to use things Brennan said in support of premises
. Strange.
Post by Bud
Bud, clueless to the end of acj...
Don Willis, treating the assassination as a creative writing exercise right to the end.
Interesting how your ideas always get more and more complex and fantastic as you create.
"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for troublesome data, a red flag should be raised, indicating it`s time for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood." -Bob Novella
dcw
Bud
2024-02-05 10:49:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Willis
Post by Bud
Post by Bud
Post by Donald Willis
Brennan superimposes what he saw on the 5th floor over the 6th floor, as seen in CE 477
I think that Howard Brennan was clearly conflating what he saw in different windows on, respectively, the 5th & 6th floors of the TSBD. Consider: In CE 477, he circles both the 1st & 2nd windows from the SE end on the 6th floor, his "A" representing the sniper here. These are the same two windows which he leaves empty on the floor below. The implication is that, after putting "A" on the 6th floor, he then had no one with whom to replace "A" on the 5th floor. But why would he seem to relocate the sniper at two windows? Because he saw a rifle at the SE end window on the 5th floor, then saw what he thought was the same man (only partially seen at best there) at the 2nd single window from the end, on the same floor, who "maybe paused for another second as though to assure hisself that he hit his mark", as Brennan put it. The Dillard photo(s), as well as the Powell slide, then, captured this moment with the man Brennan mistakenly thought was the sniper pausing, Bonnie Ray Williams. Brennan was later persuaded that he was mistaken both as to his identity of the sniper and the number of the floor, yet he retained the mistake of that second window in his diagramming of the 6th-floor "A". And then, necessarily, left both halves of the SE end double window on the 5th floor vacant.
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
Post by Donald Willis
dcw
Yeah -- he also swore in that affidavit & his testimony that he could somehow guess the guy's height & weight.
Non sequitur.
If he swore falsely in one case, odds are he swore falsely in another.
In which case the information he supplied about the "openness" of the window would be unusable.
Post by Donald Willis
Post by Bud
As usual, you flit away elsewhere.
But FBI dispatches of the time reveal that his & Sawyer's info came from a witness who saw someone behind the depository, with a Winchester or 20--20. They got Brennan to lie about the height & weight, as well as the floor #, if not the type of rifle.
And yet you continue to use things Brennan said in support of premises
. Strange.
Post by Bud
Bud, clueless to the end of acj...
Don Willis, treating the assassination as a creative writing exercise right to the end.
Interesting how your ideas always get more and more complex and fantastic as you create.
"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for troublesome data, a red flag should be raised, indicating it`s time for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood." -Bob Novella
dcw
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 02:49:20 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-05 12:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for troublesome data, a red flag should be raised, indicating it`s time for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood." -Bob Novella
You and Bob Novella should take a good look at your star witness Brennan.

https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/
Bud
2024-02-05 17:37:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
"When a theory becomes increasingly complex to account for troublesome data, a red flag should be raised, indicating it`s time for Occam`s Razor to draw some blood." -Bob Novella
You and Bob Novella should take a good look at your star witness Brennan.
What about him?
Post by Gil Jesus
https://gil-jesus.com/the-man-who-saw-oswald-in-the-window/
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 17:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
What about him?
What about Bugliosi?

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 16:09:13 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-05 09:46:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.

MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt ?

MR. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )

Was Oswald wearing different clothes when Brennan saw him in the window, and if so, how did the fibers from the the shirt he changed into and was arrested in ( CE 150 ) get on the rifle ?
Bud
2024-02-05 10:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
"I take this building across the street to be about 7 stories anyway in the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window."
-Howard Brennan`s 11-22-63 affidavit.
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt ?
MR. BRENNAN. Well, not particularly either. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
Was Oswald wearing different clothes when Brennan saw him in the window, and if so, how did the fibers from the the shirt he changed into and was arrested in ( CE 150 ) get on the rifle ?
Why do you expect other people to do your thinking for you all the time?

1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.

2. Oswald may not have been wearing the shirt at the time he shot Kennedy (and there is evidence to that effect).

3. Fibers that got on the rifle from contact made weeks earlier would still be incriminating, the transfer didn`t have to occur on the day of the assassination.
Gil Jesus
2024-02-05 12:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.
You sure about that ? Let me post that testimony again:

MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.

MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or THE SHIRT ?

MR. BRENNAN. Well, NOT PARTICULARLY EITHER. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
Post by Bud
2. Oswald may not have been wearing the shirt at the time he shot Kennedy (and there is evidence to that effect).
May not have ? Sounds like you're speculating. Citation ? Source ? Show us that evidence you claim exists.
Post by Bud
3. Fibers that got on the rifle from contact made weeks earlier would still be incriminating, the transfer didn`t have to occur on the day of the assassination.
You're speculating again. So when did the fibers get on the shirt ?
Show us your evidence that the shirt had contact with the rifle before November 22nd.

<snicker>
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 04:15:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.
You sure about that ?
No, he's simply lying. He really has no clue.
Post by Gil Jesus
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or THE SHIRT ?
MR. BRENNAN. Well, NOT PARTICULARLY EITHER. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
He wasn't the only witness that described the assassin's clothing as
different from what Oswald was wearing...

But believers believe... just not the evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
2. Oswald may not have been wearing the shirt at the time he shot Kennedy (and there is evidence to that effect).
May not have ? Sounds like you're speculating. Citation ? Source ? Show us that evidence you claim exists.
Don't hold your breath. Chickenshit *can't*.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
3. Fibers that got on the rifle from contact made weeks earlier would still be incriminating, the transfer didn`t have to occur on the day of the assassination.
You're speculating again. So when did the fibers get on the shirt ?
Show us your evidence that the shirt had contact with the rifle before November 22nd.
<snicker>
The *only* evidence that Oswald ever touched that weapon was
manufactured.
Bud
2024-02-05 17:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 04:15:01 -0800 (PST), Gil Jesus
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.
You sure about that ?
No, he's simply lying. He really has no clue.
Post by Gil Jesus
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or THE SHIRT ?
MR. BRENNAN. Well, NOT PARTICULARLY EITHER. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
He wasn't the only witness that described the assassin's clothing as
different from what Oswald was wearing...
But believers believe... just not the evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
2. Oswald may not have been wearing the shirt at the time he shot Kennedy (and there is evidence to that effect).
May not have ? Sounds like you're speculating. Citation ? Source ? Show us that evidence you claim exists.
Don't hold your breath. Chickenshit *can't*.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
3. Fibers that got on the rifle from contact made weeks earlier would still be incriminating, the transfer didn`t have to occur on the day of the assassination.
You're speculating again. So when did the fibers get on the shirt ?
Show us your evidence that the shirt had contact with the rifle before November 22nd.
<snicker>
The *only* evidence that Oswald ever touched that weapon was
manufactured.
Do you ever support anything you say?
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 17:30:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Do you ever support anything you say?
Clearly, you don't:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Bud
2024-02-05 17:23:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or THE SHIRT ?
MR. BRENNAN. Well, NOT PARTICULARLY EITHER. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
Where doe he say Oswald had a different shirt on when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup?
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
2. Oswald may not have been wearing the shirt at the time he shot Kennedy (and there is evidence to that effect).
May not have ?
Yes, the possibility exists.
Post by Gil Jesus
Sounds like you're speculating.
It would, you are an idiot who would be baffled by someone putting on or removing a layer of clothing.

Not a crime you were investigating would ever be solved, you stumped by the simplest things.
Post by Gil Jesus
Citation ? Source ? Show us that evidence you claim exists.
A waste of time, you have no ability to reason to apply to the evidence.
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
3. Fibers that got on the rifle from contact made weeks earlier would still be incriminating, the transfer didn`t have to occur on the day of the assassination.
You're speculating again.
Offering possibilities that aren`t ruled out isn`t speculating.
Post by Gil Jesus
So when did the fibers get on the shirt ?
What could that matter? Any time is incriminating because a draws a direct connection between Oswald and the weapon used to kill Kennedy (something else you can`t figure out).
Post by Gil Jesus
Show us your evidence that the shirt had contact with the rifle before November 22nd.
Doesn`t matter when. Oswald`s shirt being in contact with the murder weapon is incriminating no matter when the contact occurred.
Post by Gil Jesus
<snicker>
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 17:31:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bud
Post by Gil Jesus
Post by Bud
1. Brennan didn`t say Oswald was wearing a different shirt when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup.
MR. BRENNAN. That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
MR. BELIN. You mean with reference to the trousers or THE SHIRT ?
MR. BRENNAN. Well, NOT PARTICULARLY EITHER. He just didn't have he same clothes on. ( 3 H 161 )
Where doe he say Oswald had a different shirt on when he saw him in the window and when he saw him in the lineup?
Does the Sun shine where you live?

Or are you a moron?

You're clearly terrified of this:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2024-02-05 15:27:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 02:55:33 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Loading...