Thomas Graves

Dawn, Where's the final quotation mark? It's interesting that Bailey said "annuals" in the first sentence. I would have said "annals" but would have been very careful to put in both "n's". It makes no sense that anyone would "start" a series of aptitude tests at any state's Employment Commission in one month and "complete" the tests six months later at an office some forty miles away from the first office. The documents and the circumstances of Oswald's life (i.e. returning to the U.S. in June, 1962, and resettling in Fort Worth) suggest that Oswald went in to the first office (Fort Worth) in June, 1962 and took the entire series of tests at that time. (Unfortunately some bureaucrat or social worker confused "6/62" for "4/62" when writing down the date Oswald went in to the Fort Worth office.) Then he went into the Dallas office in October, 1962, after having relocated there. Upon request, the test results from Fort Worth were sent to the Dallas office via teletype, and were written down on Oswald's Dallas Texas Employment Commission documents so that the Commission's workers in Dallas could refer to them while trying to help Oswald find a job. That's a very simple and reasonable explanation. Please note the "Date in Fort Worth -- June, 1962" written in the "comments" section right next to the test scores. IMHO, this indicates that he took those tests in June of 1962 and that they were teletyped to the Dallas office in October of that same year and written down on the Dallas TEC documents. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0210a.htm Look at it this way. It wouldn't have made any sense to have Oswald take the same, time-consuming, highly-accurate tests twice and only six months apart, would it? Or to have him start them in Fort Worth and finish them in Dallas six months later and forty miles away? LOL --Tommy PS I should have become a lawyer. I would have loved facing you in court.

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? Yes They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, ... Yes ... but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it? Almost, David. Almost. It's my belief that the patsy-framers thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5' 10" tall and weighed 165 pounds because those were the biometrics that had been "given" to him way back in May of 1960 when FBI agent John W. Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald and in that interview she allegedly described her son, Lee, as being 5'10", 165 lbs, and having blue eyes. Fain's report with its false description of Oswald soon made its way to the CIA's Ann Egerter and Bill Bright and was quickly incorporated by the latter into the Agency's computerized Central Registry. What's interesting for our purposes is that it just so happened that there was another "defector" (who really was 5'10", 165 lbs, had blue eyes, light brown wavy hair, and a face that at least somewhat resembled Oswald's) who was living in Russia at the time and who was trying to get permission from the Soviet authorities to return to the U.S. His name was Robert E. Webster, a plastics chemist with an Air Force security clearance who was working for Rand Development when he "defected" a few days before Oswald. The theory is that Oswald was "given" Webster's height, weight, and eye color in certain classified CIA documents so that those intentional inaccuracies could serve as "marked cards" in an ongoing "mole hunt" for "Popov's mole." . The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that those false biometrics (5'10", 165 lbs) of Oswald were still circulating and / or being preserved in certain CIA documents at the time of the assassination, and my belief is that the patsy-framer was someone in U.S. intelligence (or an outsider who was privy to it) who was relying on the information in those documents to be accurate descriptions of Oswald, but they weren't. In the case of Oswald's weight, they were off by 25 to 30 pounds. So yeah, the bad guys almost blew it, David. Please bear in mind that Baker and Brennan weren't the only two witnesses to claim that "Oswald" / "The Assassin" was 5'10" tall and around 165 lbs. There was also the mysterious, unnamed "witness" whom Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer allegedly relied upon for the description of the fleeing assassin -- "Early 30's, 5'10", 165 pounds" -- for the police radio broadcasts Sawyer made 10 to 15 minutes after the assassination. This alleged witness allegedly saw a man with those biometrics running away from the TSBD shortly after the assassination. --Tommy David, Google "marked card" or "barium meal" if you want to. And "Popov's mole," too, while you're at it. Have you read Bill Simpich's "The Double Dangle"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1 --Tommy Altogether edited and therefore bumped.

Another "stoneage" person here. I'm shorter and stockier than Oswald, but aged around 20, I was around 10 stone = 140 lbs, so I'm finding it hard to believe a taller man would be much less than that (and wouldn't he have built some muscles in his marine days which weren't that long ago then?). So I think probably more than 131, but less than 165 and probably less than 150. Mike, I'm terribly sorry but the poll just doesn't have options like that. The best I can do for you (and equally perplexed Ian) is to give you the following two choices. Here they are -- 1 ) "I think Oswald in the photo weighed closer to 131 (9 st 5 lb) than to 150 (10 st 10 lb)," or 2 ) "I think Oswald in the photo weighed closer to 150 (10 st 10 lb) than to 131 (9 st 5 lb)." Would you care to vote now, Mike? Which shall it be, 1 or 2? Go ahead and say the latter if you want to, Mike. I couldn't care less. DVP needs all the support around here he can get. --Tommy

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? Yes They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, ... Yes ... but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it? Almost, David. Almost. The patsy-framers thought that Lee Harvey Oswald was 5' 10" tall and weighed 165 pounds because those were the biometrics that had been "given" to him way back in May of 1960 when FBI agent John W. Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald and in that interview she allegedly described her son, Lee, as being 5'10", 165 lbs, and having blue eyes. Fain's report with its false description of Oswald soon made its way to the CIA's Ann Egerter and Bill Bright and was quickly incorporated by the latter into the Agency's computerized Central Registry. What's interesting for our purposes is that It just so happened that another "defector" (who really was 5'10", 165 lbs, had blue eyes, light brown wavy hair, and a face that somewhat resembled Oswald's) who was living in Russia at the time and who was trying to get permission from the Soviet authorities to return to the U.S. His name was Robert E. Webster of the Rand Corporation. The theory is that Oswald was "given" Webster's height, weight, and eye color in certain classified CIA documents so that those intentional inaccuracies could serve as "marked cards" in an ongoing "mole hunt" for "Popov's mole." . The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that those false biometrics (5'10", 165 lbs) of Oswald were still circulating and / or being preserved in certain CIA documents at the time of the assassination, and my belief is that the patsy-framer was someone in U.S. intelligence (or an outsider who was privy to it) who was relying on the information in those aforementioned documents to be accurate descriptions of Oswald, but they weren't. So yeah, the bad guys almost blew it, David. Please bear in mind that Baker and Brennan weren't the only two witnesses to claim that "Oswald" / "The Assassin" was 5'10" tall and around 165 lbs. There was also the mysterious, unnamed "witness" whom Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer allegedly relied upon for the description of the fleeing assassin -- "Early 30's, 5'10", 165 pounds" -- for the police radio broadcasts Sawyer made 10 to 15 minutes after the assassination. This alleged witness allegedly saw a man with those biometrics running away from the TSBD shortly after the assassination. --Tommy David, Google "marked card" or "barium meal" if you want to. And "Popov's mole," too, while you're at it. Have you read Bill Simpich's "The Double Dangle"? http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Chapter1 --Tommy

Ian, I didn't say that 5' 9 1/2" and 165 pounds was "particularly large" for a man. I said it's noticeably larger than 5' 9 1/2" and 131 lbs. But perhaps you disagree. So, should I put you down as voting that Oswald, as he looks in the photo, was closer to 131 lbs that day, or closer to 150 lbs? Or is it just too difficult for you to say one way or the other? --Tommy

Fair enough, Ian Old Boy. Let me put it to you this way. If Baker really confronted Oswald that day, how likely do you think he would have described him as being "around 165 pounds?" --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 I've read a lot regarding eyewitness testimony, Tommy, and there's nothing to your contention Baker would be less likely to misjudge a man's size than a non-police officer. Motorcycle cops are not "trained" to guess people's weight anymore than bank tellers or grease monkeys. Are cops trained (or at least encouraged) to be good observers, Pat? Do they have to write lots of reports about the people they have to deal with in criminal situations? Aren't they expected to describe these people accurately in their reports? Are you aware of your own height and weight? When you meet someone who is significantly lighter or heavier than you, do you take notice, Pat? If so, don't you think that Baker, looking for the sniper about a minute-and-a-half after the final shot would have been even more likely than you or I to take note of the fact that the "Oswald" he allegedly confronted in the second-floor lunch room was as skinny as he appears in the photo below? Do you think you would have described the 5'9" - 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald, below, as weighing "about 165 pounds" if you had confronted him like Baker claimed he had confronted him on 1/22/63? --Tommy Edited while Pat was posting; bumped for Pat.

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 I've read a lot regarding eyewitness testimony, Tommy, and there's nothing to your contention Baker would be less likely to misjudge a man's size than a non-police officer. Motorcycle cops are not "trained" to guess people's weight anymore than bank tellers or grease monkeys. Are cops trained (or at least encouraged) to be good observers, Pat? Do they have to write lots of reports about the people they have to deal with in criminal situations? Aren't they expected to describe these people accurately in their reports? Are you aware of your own height and weight? When you meet someone who is significantly lighter or heavier than you, do you take notice, Pat? If so, don't you think that Baker, looking for the sniper about a minute-and-a-half after the final shot would have been even more likely than you or I to take note of the fact that the "Oswald" he allegedly confronted in the second-floor lunch room was really only a puny 131-ish lbs? Do you think you would have described the 5'9" - 5'10" Lee Harvey Oswald as weighing "about 165 pounds" if you had confronted him like Baker claimed he'd encountered him on 11/22/63? --Tommy

His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." I thought that, during an autopsy, the body would have actually been weighed in order to ensure that all information gleaned was accurate? Good point, Ian. Wanna see with your own eyes that autopsy report that says "estimated 150 pounds?" BTW, how much do you think he weighs in the photograph? 131 pounds or 150 pounds? Or do you want to stay noncommittal on it? --Tommy

Thanks, Randy. In high school I was 6' 5" and a whopping 167 pounds, about as skinny as Oswald is in the above photograph. But at least I could dunk the basketball (if nobody was guarding me). The Tally So Far: "Lightweight" (131 lbs) -- Tommy, Paul B., Mark, Randy, ... (4) "Super Welterweight" (150 lbs) -- DVP, ... (1) Who else?

Thanks, Mark. That makes it "131-pound Lightweight" -- Tommy, Paul B., Mark,... (3) -- vs -- "150-pound Super Welterweight" -- DVP,... (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class_(boxing) Who else would like to cast their vote? Does anyone else out there think that Oswald looks like he could weigh "an estimated 150 pounds?" --Tommy

Thanks David. Please see my rebuttal to your argument in that other thread. The tally so far: "Oswald weighed very close to 131 pounds on 11/22/63" -- Tommy, Paul B., ..... (2) "Oswald weighed kinda close to 'an estimated 150 pounds' on 11/22/63" -- DVP, ... (1) Who else would like to cast their vote?

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Baker's 11/22 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 160 to 170 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald....who is a man (Oswald, that is) whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 160 to 170-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence? David, Thanks for admitting you don't have the foggiest idea about those measurements of Oswald that were written on his fingerprint card on 11/22/63. Just because Baker said the man he encountered on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or more likely on the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) weighed "about 165 pounds" and this figure seemed to dovetail with key witness Howard Leslie Brennan's "calculations" of "160 to 170 pounds" for the assassin (even though he "viewed," from far below and at a horrible angle, the assassin, standing and shooting through an impossible-to-shoot-through-from-a-standing-position dirty, partially-opened, low widow) doesn't necessarily mean that Baker and Brennan were both talking about Oswald or that the descriptions they gave even supported each other's description of Oswald / The Assassin. It's more plausible, IMHO, that Baker and Brennan were coached, maybe even beforehand, on the descriptions (based on a 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald FBI / CIA "marked card" in which Oswald was described as being a Robert E. Webster-like 5' 10", 165 pounds) they were to give the authorities in order to incriminate Oswald, or that Baker was talking about the probable assassin (Tan jacket man / Brown Coat Man) he'd encountered (and whom Truly may have innocently or criminally vouched for) on the fourth floor. As for Brennan, I think he was either guessing (accurately as it turned out, about Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat man at the sixth-floor window) or had been coached on what to say according to (luckily for us - inaccurate) Oswald "marked card" information in a nearly-bungled attempt to incriminate Oswald. I say "luckily for us" because if this interpretation is correct, it points us in the direction of the FBI and the CIA and Army Intel. The FBI, after all, had helped the CIA create the "marked card" in the first place when they interviewed Marguerite Oswald about seven months after her son had "defected" to Russia and in so doing falsely ascribed to her the incorrect Lee Harvey Oswald Webster-like measurements http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6665&relPageId=8 which were passed on to the CIA's Ann Egerter of CI/SIG and Bill Bright of SR/6/Biographics who quickly integrated the Oswald "marked card" biometrics into the CIA's computerized Central Registry. (It's interesting to note that Marguerite said after the assassination that her son, Lee Harvey Oswald, "never weighed more than 150 pounds in his life." Well, she should know. How likely is it that she told the FBI's John W. Fain that LHO weighed 165 pounds?) For more background on the Oswald "marked card" and some other interesting stuff, see "Part 5: The Double Dangle" from The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built The Oswald Legend by Bill Simpich: http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-101226-568.html It's interesting to note that facially Webster and Oswald looked alike, making Webster's biometrics ideally-suited to ascribe to Oswald in a "dangle" - "marked card" operation : --Tommy PS Here's Brennan's testimony: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan.htm The pertinent part: Mr. BELIN. Could you describe the man you saw in the window on the sixth floor? Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, 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. PPS I wouldn't call a man who was 5' 10" and 160 to 170 pounds "slender."

Assuming Oswald was about 5' 10" tall, looking at the photograph I'd have to say he weighed the 131 pounds. What do other members think? --Tommy PS Why is this important? Basically because police officer Marion Baker said the suspect he encountered either on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) was about 30 years old and weighed about 165 pounds. Key witness Howard Brennan said the assassin was about 5' 10" tall and weighed between "160 and 170 pounds." And last but not least, there's the mysterious "witness" who told police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer a few minutes after the assassination that he'd seen a man weighing "about 165 pounds" running away from the rear of the TSBD a few seconds after the assassination. About fifteen minutes after the assassination, Sawyer broadcast the first description of the suspected assassin over the police radio: "About 30 years old, 5'10" tall, 165 lbs."

His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." His fingerprint card, made while he was still alive on 11/22/63, says he was 69.5 inches tall (5' 9 1/2") and weighed 131 pounds.

You're a bit mixed up, Tommy. On 11/25/63, Oswald was already six feet under at Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth. (Well, actually, he was buried on that exact day.) And nobody took Lee's fingerprints on Nov. 25. Those prints were taken of the living Oswald on Nov. 22. CE630 [below] was dated "11-25-63", after his death, yes. But his prints most certainly weren't taken on Nov. 25. It's obvious that some of the info on that fingerprint card (CE630) was acquired when Oswald was still alive. Note the "Refused To Sign" remark on the same document. And I doubt that refers to Oswald's corpse. Most dead people wouldn't be able to "refuse to sign" anything. Because they're dead. So the "131 lbs." weight figure on his fingerprint card couldn't possibly have been obtained on Nov. 25 either. And the autopsy report's "estimated 150 pounds" weight is the only official weight figure I know of for LHO after his death. And if they weighed the corpse on a scale, why the need to "estimate" the weight in the official autopsy report? Makes no sense. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0156a.htm OK, David. Touche. LOL! So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department? Wasn't this the first time he'd been "booked" at the DPD? If they took his fingerprints when he was still alive on 11/22/63, isn't it reasonable to assume that that's when they measured his height and weight, too? Regardless, the "131 pounds" sounds like a more exact measurement that the garden-variety "estimated 150 pounds," wouldn't you agree, especially when written in conjunction with the height of 69.5 inches (5' 9 1/2") ? Assuming Oswald was 5' 9 1/2" tall, do you think he weighs 150 pounds in the photo below? How could the trained observer, police officer Marion Baker, think that the guy below weighed 165 pounds? How could Howard Brennan think the guy below weighed 160 to 170 pounds? How could the mysterious witness who claimed to have seen the "165 pound" assassin running away from the rear of the TSBD believe that the man he saw was the guy below? --Tommy Hey, I have an idea! Let's have a poll! How many members think Oswald weighed closer to 131 pounds than 150 pounds on 11/22/63? I say he weighed much closer to 131. Like spot on. Please see my new thread: "How Much Do You Think Oswald Weighed On 11/22/63?"

His "estimated weight" at autopsy was 150 pounds. Nice round number. Kinda non committal right in the middle like that. Whereas his cadaver was an exactly-measured 5' 9 1/2" "tall" and weighed an exact 131 pounds on 11/25/63 when his fingerprints were taken by the Dallas Police Department. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=389&tab=page Look how skinny he is here. He sure doesn't look like he packing 150 pounds on his 5' 9 1/2" frame, does he? --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 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

You'll have to explain that Sean. In my scenario outlined earlier, I see no problem with Prayer Man following Baker and Truly into the building from where he took the front stairs while Truly and Baker were taking the rear stairs. Interesting theory by Mr. Carroll. Oswald could have gone up to the second floor and encountered Baker and Truly there. But how to explain Baker's describing the guy in the second floor lunch room as weighing 165 pounds when Oswald weighed only about 135 lbs? --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

Maybe. Why do you ask, David? --Tommy 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...

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

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. 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: --Tommy

Well, Steven. I can tell you're getting upset and becoming irrational. Why don't you lie down for awhile and take some deep breaths? You know, "In through the nose, out through the mouth. In through the nose, ..." --Tommy PS So Armstrong never said that "Lee" had a job during the "Harvey in Russia" period? Interesting. I guess it's reasonable to assume that he would have at least mentioned it if he had uncovered such a job during his exhaustive research, wouldn't he? So, the fact that he didn't leads "the reasonable man" (it's a legal theory, Steven) to conclude that "Lee" didn't hold down a job during that two-and-one-half-years period of time. So NOW I'd like to thank you for pointing that out, Steven. That works out very nicely for the H&L crowd, doesn't it? No pay stubs, no tax returns, no job applications for "Lee" from (at least) late 1959 through (at least) the middle of 1962. Which could indicate one of two things: 1 ) "Lee" was deep deep deep undercover. - or - 2 ) "Lee" didn't exist. I choose the latter. --Tommy

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