Jump to content
The Education Forum

Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?


Recommended Posts

DVP,

The main point I wanted but failed to make yesterday goes to the title of this diary: why you rattle cages here.

IMO, it's not just that your theory is the U.S. Government's theory. It's that your theory is simple and provides a confirmed (confirmed by government officials, agents, or witnesses) answer to all questions pertinent to the assassination.

Your theory is simple in that it has few parts, which fit together.

That in my estimation is both the strength and the weakness of your theory. It is strong because it is compact and arguably durable. It is weak because, to use the language of digital signal processing, it samples an incomplete spectrum of data.

It's as if there is a set of data points. Some data points have good value; some have questionable value -- maybe they're just noise, not signal. You arbitrarily assign value to the data points and disregard those you deem to have low value. And guess what? CT-ers do the same thing.

So the problem, after all, is not your sampling. You know how to sample. You have a good sampling algorithm. The problem from my standpoint boils down to how you assign value to data points.

IMO all commenters on the JFK assassination have the same problem. Brennan's testimony, for example, is one "data point". Most here assign zero value to it. You assign a non-zero value to it. The question is (I'm thinking like a judge), who is more reasonable in assigning value to Brennan's testimony: DVP or some knowledgable CT-er?

I leave the answer to Thomas Graves, among others.

The main problem I have with Howard Brennan's testimony lies in this exchange:

Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, [the shooter in the sixth-floor window was] a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.

Mr. BELIN. About what weight?

Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.

I don't see how Brennan, sitting at an acute angle far below the sixth-floor window, could have accurately judged the height of the shooter. What's more, he said he could see the shooter only from the hips or the belt line up. The shooter's weight might have been easier for him to estimate, but in this case Brennan is some 25 to 35 pounds off from what Oswald weighed at autopsy when he was fingerprinted and measured on 11/22/63 (132 pounds if I remember correctly), leading me to believe one of three things:

1 ) Brennan was guessing

2 ) Brennan saw someone other that Oswald at the sixth-floor window. (Could this be the man in the brown jacket / coat that Baker encountered on the fourth floor?)

3 ) Brennan was told what to say by the bad guys (who had been unintentionally misinformed by Army Intel, which, in turn, had been given by the CIA or the FBI the physical description of the Oswald-lookalike and probable fellow "false defector," Robert E. Webster).

--Tommy :sun

How does DVP explain how Brennan could have estimated the shooter's height and weight from where he was sitting down on the street?

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Let's assign value:

Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, [the shooter in the sixth-floor window was] a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.
Mr. BELIN. About what weight?
Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.

I assign zero value to this description. Why? Brennan could not have seen the shooter above hips. Right, DVP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assign value:

Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, [the shooter in the sixth-floor window was] a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.

Mr. BELIN. About what weight?

Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.

I assign zero value to this description. Why? Brennan could not have seen the shooter above hips. Right, DVP?

Jon,

I guess you're right.

Although Brennan said he could only see the shooter from the hips or belt line up, in reality, he could have seen a standing shooter only from the hips or belt line down.

BTW, Brennan also said he thought the shooter was sitting on the windowsill at one point before the limo came by, but was standing "like the black guys at the fifth-floor window" while shooting at JFK. Now if the shooter really was standing "like the black guys" when he fired the rifle, it beats me as to why Brennan would throw in the "sitting on the windowsill," too, but it is valuable information because it tells us that Brennan couldn't possibly have confused the two positions, could he? It's an interesting (because it reflects on Brennan's credibility) but rather moot point because the window, even if lifted as high as it would go, couldn't have been opened high enough to allow anyone to shoot through it from a standing position.

WH_Vol17_0116a.jpg

So why did Brennan say that the assassin was standing while firing? His testimony would have been more convincing if he'd said he saw the shooter firing from a sitting position. Maybe he didn't say that because he had to get in the "possibly 5' 10", 160 to 170 pounds" bit in, and in order to do so had to say he saw the shooter standing at the window.

Most importantly, I disagree, for very ironic reasons, with your assessment that Brennan's testimony here has "zero value." Brennan's testimony, given what you've pointed out, above, suggests that he was told what to say, and what he said suggests the transmission of FBI/CIA/Army Intell regarding the biological details of Robert E. Webster as "inherited" by Lee Harvey Oswald in a "dangle" / "mole hunting" operation begun by the the FBI and CIA in 1960 when Oswald was still in Russia.

Powell photo on the left; Dillard photo on the right:

bfjiva.jpg

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something for CTers to ponder....

Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course). Here's a 2014 exchange I had with two CTers about the similar descriptions provided by Brennan and Officer Baker....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] gave his *OWN* weight as 140... and a document from after his death gives his weight as "131," which due to the number given, is almost certainly the most accurate number of all.

David won't address this issue, even though Oswald's *TRUE* weight is clearly the issue, not the autopsy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Oswald's *TRUE* weight is not actually the overriding issue here at all. The overriding issue, as far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, is what those witnesses thought Oswald's weight was when they saw him on 11/22/63.

And the very best evidence for a person whose estimated weight was given as "165 pounds" actually being Lee Harvey Oswald resides in the 11/22/63 affidavit of policeman Marrion L. Baker, who said these exact words in that affidavit (and we know without any doubt that he is talking about Lee Oswald here, because Roy Truly verified that the person Baker stopped at gunpoint in the second-floor lunchroom was Oswald)....

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L. Baker; 11/22/63

HERE is Baker's affidavit.

Therefore, the real Lee Harvey Oswald, who did not weigh 165 pounds, did appear to weigh 165 pounds to Officer Baker on November 22 in that lunchroom. And the real Oswald also appeared to be "approximately 30 years old" to Baker too, perfectly matching Howard Brennan's estimate of the age of the sixth-floor assassin that he also saw that same day. And Brennan's weight estimate for the sixth-floor assassin also generally matches the incorrect weight estimate provided by Baker.

Plus: Baker thought (incorrectly) that Oswald was wearing a "jacket", when we know the "brown jacket" Baker spoke of was only Oswald's brown shirt (which was open and not tucked in). The "jacket" comment also matches another witness' incorrect assertion about Oswald wearing a jacket--and that witness is William Whaley.

But the conspiracy theorists have nowhere to run with all those mistakes that Officer Baker made about Oswald's description---because there can be no doubt whatsoever that Baker was describing a person who we know (via Roy Truly) was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ergo, a weight estimate of 165 pounds for Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly does not mean that Baker (or Brennan) had to have seen someone other than Oswald in the Depository on November 22, 1963. And Marrion Baker's official affidavit is the thing that forever proves that fact.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're lying again, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The main point concerning the topic of Oswald's weight is clearly a point that Ben Holmes cannot grasp. And that important point is: The REAL Oswald was said to weigh 165 pounds by a witness who we know saw the REAL Lee Oswald (not some "imposter"). And that witness is Marrion Baker.

Holmes would be much better off just stating that Baker lied his eyes out in his 11/22 affidavit that I posted earlier, wherein Baker claims that the man he stopped in the lunchroom weighed 165 pounds (and was about 30 years old, which is also wrong).

Ben, do you think Baker was lying about the "165 pounds" and "approximately 30 years old" portions of his affidavit, just to conform to Howard Brennan's nearly identical description of the sixth-floor sniper and/or to conform to the Dallas Police Department's 12:45 PM APB radio broadcast concerning the description of the President's assassin?

Because if conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes think Baker was being totally truthful in that affidavit, then they've got no choice but to admit that a witness who saw the real Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, definitely did think he weighed 165 pounds.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

No matter what DVP says, I find it difficult to understand how a person weighing 131 pounds could be said to have weighed 165.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, are you saying Marrion Baker was lying in his affidavit? Because Baker definitely did see Oswald, and Baker definitely did estimate Oswald's weight to be 165.

And Ted Callaway also positively identified Lee Oswald (at a police lineup), and Callaway said this to the Warren Commission about Oswald's weight (varying by only five pounds from Baker's guess about LHO's weight):

MR. CALLAWAY -- "Just a nice athletic type size boy, I mean. Neither fat nor thin."

MR. BALL -- "What did you estimate his weight when you talked to the officer before the lineup?"

MR. CALLAWAY -- "I told him it looked to me like around 160 pounds."



Was Callaway lying too?

And there's also Howard Brennan, who (albeit belatedly) did positively identify Lee Oswald as the sixth-floor assassin. In his 11/22/63 affidavit, Brennan said the sniper in the TSBD window weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds".

But a key word used by Brennan in that same affidavit that is often overlooked by conspiracists is "slender". Brennan said the "165 to 175-pound" person was ALSO "slender". And Oswald was "slender".

David Von Pein
June 13, 2014

Link to post
Share on other sites

forgive me (or not), but you're using DVP logic - just because i assign a value to the shell casings in no way goes to show i, and all other CTers, assign value to all data points. it goes to show that i assign a value to the shell casings. that's it. assuming i'm telling the truth, that is.

and you spoke of a value being assigned to Brennan, and i assigned value to the shell casings. i haven't even considered Brennan enough to assign a value or not. haven't read his testimony, haven't read much of others' comments on him. so i haven't really gotten as far as giving him a 0. (does that make him a negative value...?)

my point is that there are a great number of things to which many CTers assign no value, realistically (like the Oswald look-alike in the blue rambler seen by the mechanic - that doesn't even get a second look from me, so i guess that's a 0), and it is that when I do, going on my experiences here, then mine range from realistic to cautiously low.

so i don't know about this stereotypical "CTers do too" ---

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something for CTers to ponder....

Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course). Here's a 2014 exchange I had with two CTers about the similar descriptions provided by Brennan and Officer Baker....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] gave his *OWN* weight as 140... and a document from after his death gives his weight as "131," which due to the number given, is almost certainly the most accurate number of all.

David won't address this issue, even though Oswald's *TRUE* weight is clearly the issue, not the autopsy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Oswald's *TRUE* weight is not actually the overriding issue here at all. The overriding issue, as far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, is what those witnesses thought Oswald's weight was when they saw him on 11/22/63.

And the very best evidence for a person whose estimated weight was given as "165 pounds" actually being Lee Harvey Oswald resides in the 11/22/63 affidavit of policeman Marrion L. Baker, who said these exact words in that affidavit (and we know without any doubt that he is talking about Lee Oswald here, because Roy Truly verified that the person Baker stopped at gunpoint in the second-floor lunchroom was Oswald)....

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L. Baker; 11/22/63

HERE is Baker's affidavit.

Therefore, the real Lee Harvey Oswald, who did not weigh 165 pounds, did appear to weigh 165 pounds to Officer Baker on November 22 in that lunchroom. And the real Oswald also appeared to be "approximately 30 years old" to Baker too, perfectly matching Howard Brennan's estimate of the age of the sixth-floor assassin that he also saw that same day. And Brennan's weight estimate for the sixth-floor assassin also generally matches the incorrect weight estimate provided by Baker.

Plus: Baker thought (incorrectly) that Oswald was wearing a "jacket", when we know the "brown jacket" Baker spoke of was only Oswald's brown shirt (which was open and not tucked in). The "jacket" comment also matches another witness' incorrect assertion about Oswald wearing a jacket--and that witness is William Whaley.

But the conspiracy theorists have nowhere to run with all those mistakes that Officer Baker made about Oswald's description---because there can be no doubt whatsoever that Baker was describing a person who we know (via Roy Truly) was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ergo, a weight estimate of 165 pounds for Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly does not mean that Baker (or Brennan) had to have seen someone other than Oswald in the Depository on November 22, 1963. And Marrion Baker's official affidavit is the thing that forever proves that fact.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're lying again, David.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The main point concerning the topic of Oswald's weight is clearly a point that Ben Holmes cannot grasp. And that important point is: The REAL Oswald was said to weigh 165 pounds by a witness who we know saw the REAL Lee Oswald (not some "imposter"). And that witness is Marrion Baker.

Holmes would be much better off just stating that Baker lied his eyes out in his 11/22 affidavit that I posted earlier, wherein Baker claims that the man he stopped in the lunchroom weighed 165 pounds (and was about 30 years old, which is also wrong).

Ben, do you think Baker was lying about the "165 pounds" and "approximately 30 years old" portions of his affidavit, just to conform to Howard Brennan's nearly identical description of the sixth-floor sniper and/or to conform to the Dallas Police Department's 12:45 PM APB radio broadcast concerning the description of the President's assassin?

Because if conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes think Baker was being totally truthful in that affidavit, then they've got no choice but to admit that a witness who saw the real Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, definitely did think he weighed 165 pounds.

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

No matter what DVP says, I find it difficult to understand how a person weighing 131 pounds could be said to have weighed 165.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, are you saying Marrion Baker was lying in his affidavit? Because Baker definitely did see Oswald, and Baker definitely did estimate Oswald's weight to be 165.

And Ted Callaway also positively identified Lee Oswald (at a police lineup), and Callaway said this to the Warren Commission about Oswald's weight (varying by only five pounds from Baker's guess about LHO's weight):

MR. CALLAWAY -- "Just a nice athletic type size boy, I mean. Neither fat nor thin."

MR. BALL -- "What did you estimate his weight when you talked to the officer before the lineup?"

MR. CALLAWAY -- "I told him it looked to me like around 160 pounds."

Was Callaway lying too?

And there's also Howard Brennan, who (albeit belatedly) did positively identify Lee Oswald as the sixth-floor assassin. In his 11/22/63 affidavit, Brennan said the sniper in the TSBD window weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds".

But a key word used by Brennan in that same affidavit that is often overlooked by conspiracists is "slender". Brennan said the "165 to 175-pound" person was ALSO "slender". And Oswald was "slender".

David Von Pein

June 13, 2014

Oswald weighed only 131 or 132 pounds at autopsy. Baker's description of the man on the second floor (or was it the fourth?) as weighing 165 pounds, and Brennan's description of the shooter as weighing between 160 and 170 pounds, fit the description of another suspect altogether, or perhaps the description of Oswald lookalike and probable fellow "false defector" Robert E. Webster, instead. And let's not forget that Officer Sawyer broadcast over police radio a few minutes after the assassination that the assassin weighed 165 pounds, too, and that Sawyer was given this information by a mysterious "witness" whom J. Edgar Hoover ruled out as having been Howard Brennan.

The problem is, Oswald didn't weigh 170, or 165, or even 160 pounds. He weighed only about 135 pounds at the time of the assassination. (As far as Ben Holmes' point that Oswald described himself as weighing 140 pounds, the same document says he described himself as having no permanent scars, which we know was a lie -- he had a scar on his wrist and he had a scar from the mastoid operation he'd had as a child -- so I guess he lied a little about his weight, too, and gave himself an extra five pounds which put him all the way up to a whopping 140 lbs, still at least 20 pounds less that what these witnesses said about the assassin.) I can understand maybe one witness' mistaking a 135 pound man for a 160-165-170 pound man, but not three or four witnesses making that kind of mistake. Let's face it: 5' 9" (or 5' 10") and 135 pounds is downright skinny, man.

Thirty years old, 5' 10" and 165 pounds. Hmmm. Sounds like Oswald lookalike Robert E. Webster circa 1959 in Russia to me. And let's not forget that Oswald "inherited" Webster's measurements, in the form of FBI / CIA "marked cards" way back in 1960.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Tommy, are you really suggesting that Baker DIDN'T see the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD? Is that what you're saying?

And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, Tommy, are you really suggesting that Baker DIDN'T see the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD? Is that what you're saying?

And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm

Maybe.

Why do you ask, David?

--Tommy :sun

PS It's more likely that he saw him on the first floor or on the front steps, and encountered the real assassin on the fourth floor. You know, the 30-year old guy in the light brown jacket or coat. It's all very complicated David.

Let me refer you to the "Oswald Leaving The TSBD?" thread, and Sean Murphy's work in particular...

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I ask? Why are you asking that question?

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would just like to comment that I appreciate knowing the thoughts of people who disagree with me. Usually, their debate makes mine stronger and that's a good thing. I see Mr. Von Pein this way. He has never been rude to me in the years we've been on the same forums. I applaud his passion in his belief. What I would like to ask you all and him is this. If one were to find DPD reports, coroner photos, or FBI letters and files at this late date, would they be guffawed as tainted evidence or would they be accepted? With so many local Dallas people dying day by day (Just recently, Bill Alexander, Bobby Joe Dale and H.B. McClain) some evidence could likely be found later by members of their family. How will the community take this in your estimation? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David.

Which do you prefer?

Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door.

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Gayle,

That's an interesting observation about potential new records surfacing following the deaths of people associated with the police department or D.A.'s office, etc.

I certainly wouldn't proclaim any such evidence as being fake. That tactic is usually reserved for the conspiracy theorists. :)

I had never thought about it before, but in the case of Assistant DA Bill Alexander's recent passing, I suppose a few things from his personal papers could come to light at some point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

Then what do you do about OSWALD HIMSELF confirming that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor? Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz?

Or was Fritz the other l-i-a-r, Tommy? Which is it?

Fritz-Notes.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David.

Which do you prefer?

Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door.

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

--Tommy :sun

Also, Baker seemed to have difficulty recalling whether he saw a man on the 2nd floor or the 4th floor.

Baker to self: "Lemme see now, we done run up one storey from the Main floor. I reckon we must be on the 2nd floor. Wait a minute, maybe it's the 4th floor. Oh hell, I never was no good at cipherin'."

Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly.

Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

A trained observer like a police officer who mistakes a 5' 9" / 5' 10," 135-pound man for a 165-pound man is either incompetent or a prevaricator, David.

Which do you prefer?

Robert Prudhomme has recently shown that Baker didn't run up the TSBD front steps in the Darnell film, but Truly testified that he followed Baker through the front door.

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."

--Tommy :sun

Also, Baker seemed to have difficulty recalling whether he saw a man on the 2nd floor or the 4th floor.

Baker to self: "Lemme see now, we done run up one storey from the Main floor. I reckon we must be on the 2nd floor. Wait a minute, maybe it's the 4th floor. Oh hell, I never was no good at cipherin'."

Exactly, Robert.

Nor weights.

--Tommy :sun

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...