Richard Price

Last comment for a while, hopefully, I need to read study more. I do think there was a triangulation of fire and that the TSBD was "set up" as the location as part of the plan. It was a military style ambush with other shooters which is why the assassin Brennan saw did not have to rush. I'm not sure if they (the assassins) initially cared from what direction the shot(s) came from, as long as the end result was a dead JFK. The thought has crossed my mind that the shot that hit Connally was purposeful - to get him out of the way of the frontal assassin on the right side of the limo.

For right now, I will only make one comment. I have Brennan's book on the way to me so I can read what he and his pastor (friend) wrote. Joe noted that he now realized what a dream set up for an ambush Dealey Plaza was. It was exactly that and it was adapted by some professionals. If I and a few others here on the forum are correct, Howard Brennan is the ONLY person in the Plaza that saw an assassin clearly. Because of his foresight in getting in a position that would allow him to have a panoramic view from the Main St.-Houston St. intersection down at least half of Elm St, he set himself up to be the only witness. The assassin in that far eastern window, 6 floors up was effectively invisible but had an unobstructed view of his target all the way from the Houston St.-Elm St. intersection down to the triple underpass. Only because he was early to get to his position (or you could say because the parade was late), he had time to look around and scan the area. With his exceptional far sightedness he was more apt to notice things at a distance than most people. The sniper could only be seen by possibly a few people on the upper floors of the building across from him, which I think I have read was the jail area. Every other person had their back to the sniper and their eyes following the parade southward along Houston and then westward. There was NO reason to look east and UP, nothing was happening there. Those who were facing northward or eastward also were gazing at street level to the south as the parade approached Elm St and then northward and finally westward. They had no reason to look up either, there were no balloons in the parade and everybody hanging out windows even if they were looking east, had their eyes focused downward towards the street for the oncoming parade. Also, from the pictures I've seen of the Dal-Tex building, there are columns of brick accent which run perpendicular to the street and obscure the view of someone looking at the windows from the west unless viewing from around probably 45 degrees or more south of the building. This is the reason, I think, that the assassin did not even worry about being seen. He was effectively INVISIBLE.

A few posts earlier Mark Stevens said, "I bet he was obsessed with that fear, I wonder what the co-conspirators of Kennedy's Assassination were afraid he saw?" I think they knew exactly what he saw and as he said on Nov. 22, 1963 - He could identify the man he saw IF HE SAW HIM AGAIN (not LHO, because that is not who he saw). This is why I think he had his "eyes sanded". Without killing him, this would be the best way to throw doubt on any ID he might make in the future. This along with manipulating his testimony, knowing his deep seated fear for his family and his general hope to just not be involved and actively trying to stay out of the public worked wonders. I believe his wanting to be left alone may have saved his life, just not his eyes and mental health. This is also the video in which I noticed his subconscious "tell" where he looks up and to the right as he describes his actions. By doing this, he CANNOT be looking at the TSBD.

I also had never considered anywhere except the TSBD and the fire escape windows of the Dal-Tex building. This I think shows the assassination was planned and executed in military style. The shooter's location is virtually invisible and has been for 57 years. Every person in the area was there to see the president. Their view is directed first (at street level) towards the south as the limo comes toward Elm, then westward as it leaves the area. The shooter is well above the crowd and over 100 feet BEHIND everyone. It is a miracle, or in this case a curse that anyone saw him. It was ALMOST PERFECT.

His sight distance to the "sniper" window is 120 feet as per his own calculations. He is quoted in one of the interviews he made as stating that he had exception far sightedness since he was a child. He said he first noticed it when he and other kids played a game where they had to identify tags on passing cars. He said he almost always won because he could see them before anyone else. He was estimated to be around 270 feet from the Dal-Tex eastern most window on the 6th floor.

One small question for anyone who might have an idea. If as I suspect, Brennan is giving almost immediate (within 5 minutes of the shooting) eyewitness accounts of a shooter in the Dal-Tex, who or what group has control so quickly and is able to direct ALL attention to the TSBD irregardless of information coming to light? This may go to who caused the assassination more than anything else. Something like that would have to be preplanned in order to carry it out so certain information and people would be discredited/discounted and specific DISINFORMATION would carry the day.

Pretty much, yes. I don''t know if I would say they made him change his story - as "they" changed his story for him and he did not resist loudly. He mostly regretted what he had seen and the position it had put him into. He just wanted to be left alone to live peacefully and safely with his family. I haven't researched and lined all the info on him up as of yet, but I think he never really changed his statements of fact except when he felt under duress. Then he would use word spaghetti to conceal what he knew or agree with the words being put into his mouth. I think the reason he was trying to refuse to answer the subpoena is that he could not violate his deep inner conviction to tell the truth. Old time southern Baptist's do not give up their core beliefs easily (most of my family are). If they are devout they will always say the read the bible, but not nearly as much as they should. Had he been forced to testify, I think there is a chance, under the correct questioning that he would have clearly in the plainest of methods, stated what he saw. As we say down where I'm from, he would have spilled the beans when it got down to brass tacks. He was extremely fearful, but he could not have put his hand on that bible (assuming they used one) and swear to a lie.

Thanks for your interest in this topic, Chris. I almost agree with your positioning, but from what little film/video I've reviewed so far, I actually think Brennan was farther east and south along the wall. Right at the 1st column of decorative holes cut/formed in the curved wall. I say this based on the Elsie Dorman pictures on Robin Unger's site.

Jim, I appreciate your reading my posts. I will try to flesh out a little more of what I'm exploring. First, I'll try to address what you questioned. I do believe the Z film pretty much as Chris Davidson and others have presented it to be altered. I don't think that work can be seriously challenged. As to where he was sitting (he was NOT standing), In the Elsie Dorman film he can be seen sitting on the "ledge" at the eastern edge almost directly over the very 1st column of the decorative holes and only a very short distance from the small concrete abutment at the south eastern end of the wall. The same abutment he ran around to get out of the line of fire. He was facing straight across the intersection towards the corner of the Dal-Tex. Next, he never said he "saw" the first shot, he said he heard what he thought was a "backfire". He was indeed looking back over his shoulder trying to see the President in the location he defined as 50 yards from the intersection. I haven't fully found all his testimony/statements/etc. as of yet, but I think in one of his statements he says he couldn't see the president at this time and couldn't/wouldn't say why? I believe he could not see the president at this time because from his angle there is a short decorative tree/bush which would have obscured his vision. The position of the limo at this time/distance would have been very close to the time stamp of the Croft picture which shows the eastern end of the low retaining wall on the north side of Elm just at the end of the TSBD. He did not ID Oswald because that is NOT who he saw with the gun (whole different building). The gunman he saw was in the eastern most window of the Dal-Tex building and there are NO PICTURES showing how much the window was open. He, I believe stated it was opened fully (I still have to verify this). He did definitely say the man at one point (prior to the parade arrival) was sitting on the ledge with his upper torso completely visible. He could see both buildings in his "panoramic viewing position", but he explicitly identifies the Dal-Tex by distances, etc. He was assigned certain statements early on by "officials". He was scared to death after seeing the shooting, then being told he was the "only" one that could ID the shooter. By the time the FBI/SS or whomever got through following him, driving him down to ID Oswald, interviewing him and repeatedly making him go over his story, he had figured out that something was wrong and saw that in order to stay safe and keep his family safe, he had better go along. Being a conservative southern Baptist he could not understand why he was being led down this path of false information. He was strong enough in his values that he would not outright lie, but so scared that he would not push the envelope. He knew very shortly after the event that he or his family could be harmed or killed, after all - the President of the United States had just been shot to death in front of him and no one would believe his story. I think the serious problem is with those who go into an investigation with preconceived ideas instead of clearing their minds and starting at ground zero. In my opinion (so far), Brennan is a man caught in the middle. He tells the truth of what he sees with his better than average distance sight. He is not seeking publicity, but does his duty in reporting what he saw. His story is almost immediately refuted/manipulated by the officials that are supposed to be investigating. Then he gets his eyes "sanded"??? Now with his story having been slanted, he is thrown to the wolves (conspiracy theorists). He is now completely confined. He is SCARED TO DEATH of something happening to his family or himself. He never wanted any attention at all and now he's being hounded on all sides and has no idea how to get out of the situation except to be largely inaccessible and try to blend back into the woodwork. Let it work itself out, at least he and his family would be safe. He did not want to be a DEAD HERO. Sorry for the long reply, I sometimes find it difficult to express myself concisely.

John, you have to remember, Brennan was being manipulated by the WC (surprise). He used specific language most of the time, but reverted to timid replies when pushed by interviewers. I think this is part of his nature/not wanting to be involved and deferring to people/officials whom he felt were supposed to be much more knowledgeable about what was going on. In the 1st snippet I posted above, I show how he stated facts, just in a simple manner. He clearly states exactly what/when he saw and heard and the relationship to his position and the Presidents position in his “country boy” manner of speaking. Anyone willing to do their homework and get an understanding of what he saw will have to initially approach with a completely blank slate. Study him and what he said and parse it by time, his manner of speaking, his enormous fear starting from day one, etc.

I am going to put together a compilation of information on Howard Brennan at some point and try to post it. My time to research is broken up into small segments, so I will post snippets as I go, with the hope of putting it all together at some point. I have now started reading Tim Smith's piece at Kennedys and King. At my first scanning, it is a hatchet piece on Brennan. So far I have read parts saying he (Brennan) is unreliable, not intelligent and seeking to interject himself in an important event. All of these are based on a preexisting bias. I will start to address these issues one by one. 1. Unreliable- When you take his own words and keep in mind when he's being led/directed by others along with his enormous fear, he is extremely truthful. 2. Not intelligent - In my short readings of his testimony/accounts given to others he has given very specific descriptions of what he saw, he even calculated the hypotenuse of the distance he was from various sights he saw (on the fly and quickly/accurately). I will cite specific instances of this in the posted snippets to come. 3. Seeking to insert himself in the event- Hardly necessary to reply to, as seen by his mentioning almost immediately that he was fearful and remained so up until his death. Snippet #1 - His description of what may have been the 1st shot as quoted in Tim Smith's article. "I proceeded to watch the President’s car as it turned left at the corner where I was and about 50 yards from the intersection of Elm and Houston and to a point I would say the President’s back was in line with the last window I have previously described [when] I heard what I thought was a back fire." If you read it correctly (his manner of speaking), I used Google Earth and plotted this out roughly. He is saying that the President's car is 50 yards from the intersection. Google Earth shows this distance to be near the eastern edge of the retaining wall on Elm (approximately the Croft photo location). At this point, the President's back is directly in line with the eastern most window of the south face of the Dal-Tex building and approximately 90 yards away. Just to also add from other observations: Brennan said the gunman was aiming at about 30 degrees downward and at an angle to the west & south (ie SW). Note the specificity and accuracy of his observations IF YOU START AT THE RIGHT WINDOW.

Still continuing my internet search for more on Brennan. I watched and listened carefully to this YouTube video and noticed something interesting. As we know Brennan was not directly facing the TSBD, but more in a direction towards the center of the turn from Houston to Elm where he could, as he stated have a panoramic view of the President as he drove by. In this position the TSBD would have been slightly left and the Dal-Tex slightly right (at least the southern face of the building). In the video when he is speaking of looking back up at the shooter, notice his subconscious "tell". As he makes the statement his eyes divert to the right and upwards just as they would have to in order to see a gunman in the SE window of the Dal-Tex.

Joe, I think it varies by state, but I can vouch for the system in Georgia. I, like you am retired and haven't tried to get a "real" job since I retired at 62, so I haven't applied for unemployment. My wife's job went away in December and she has been unemployed since then. She worked in a small company on a production type of job and doesn't have any of the retail/computer skills in her background. She got on unemployment temporarily until either she could reach minimum retirement age or find something similar to what she had done before. Then the "pandemic" hit, so she is pretty much resigned to waiting on the early retirement (October). Once she was on unemployment, she received a little over $300/week after taxes which is almost the top UI rate in Georgia. That made up for about 50% of her normal pay. Then the Federal UI started at $500/week after taxes and she was making around what she had made when working, minus of course her thrift savings which her employer matched. In Georgia, had I been unemployed, I also could have drawn the same even though we're married since each UI claim is based on the individual and nothing else. I too, thought this was possibly excessive, but then I live a simple life and have always been frugal and not aimed too high for all the extras many people think they must have. It (the Federal UI benefit) has been a great benefit to our family and I think many others. In many cases this extra money (and the eviction moratorium) is the only thing between them and living on the street. There have been abuses (I'm sure), but overall I think it has been a great life rope for the majority as they try to cope with the new reality. Manual workers can't work from home and do their job online. I sincerely hope the Senate gets on the ball and gets the Federal UI restarted quickly for your wife and many others. Lastly, in Georgia you can draw unemployment for loss of part time jobs which were lost to the pandemic. It is severely limited and based on the income lost, but at least it is something. Sometimes a few dollars means the world when you're already on the edge.

Thanks, Steve. As we used to say when I played sports, "my bad". When I looked back over the pictures I was searching (more for Brennan than anything else), I discovered that I had reversed what I read on jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com. It actually had Robert Edwards as the person in the picture according to them. They have a composite group of pictures from 5 sources that they label as Edwards. The confusing part to me is in the dialog you posted. Fischer says "they" went to their office on the 4th floor. He says Bob had left, but doesn't say where he had gone. Does this mean that Bob/Robert Edwards had went back to the Elm Street area and this is when he was brought in?

Joe, according to jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com, it is Ronald Fischer. They have a few pictures also.

I might also add that a bit of "new to me" info cropped up when searching Brennan. In a book documenting what he was witness to on 11/22/63, published after his death, he says on the night of the 22nd he was visited by some FBI/SS and met a doppelganger for JFK. This too is discussed in the above mentioned archived discussion. Strange things just keep coming up.

During my most recent searches, I have discovered that much has been discussed on this very forum dating back to at least 2010 with William Kelly, Steve Thomas and others. I'm going to try my hand at the archived articles. I probably did not read these since I was at that time deeply exploring JFK Lancer and trying to learn to use its resources.

I have still been searching for info on Brennan. I came across this "out of the blue" when I searched for anything from the HSCA. Very interesting! Again, if the file will not open let me know and I'' try again. HOWARD BRENNAN-IMMUNITY.htm

Thank you. I knew I had seen this frontal shot, but couldn't remember where. I just found it as well. I have a bookmark for the JFK Assassination Photo Research Galleries and didn't think I'd find it as quickly as I did. Thank you again, I appreciate it. I'm at the age that if I learn new information (or in this case rediscover it), some old information falls away.

I just happened upon this while reviewing some of the assassination related films. I wondered if someone on the forum was familiar with the Alyea film and had noticed/identified the two men who appear at around 45 seconds (of 1:29) into this YouTube video. It is titled Alyea film (posted by Lone Gunman). I list this in case the link I'm putting in doesn't work because I haven't always been successful at that. It is an older & taller man who appears to be escorting another man (resembling Oswald) away from the TSBD front steps.

John, there are a series of interviews on YouTube by Denis Morissette.

Paul, that is exactly what I'm starting to realize. Those on the crusade to nail LHO used him by totally confusing his answers and never addressing what he said. They did such a good job of it that the investigators outside the "official" one started to believe that "they" had to show Brennan to be confused, not of good sight and not credible. He got it from both sides and was probably stupefied because no one was asking him the right questions, at least not until he had his "accident". After that, I think he knew to just go along and not put up a fuss. If this premise is true, it is another sad story of someone trying to do the right thing and learning just how much he had been led astray by his beliefs in the fundamental American institutions. This is also disheartening to me, as there has and probably be no evidence available for a shooter at this window other than the people detained leaving the Dal-Tex building and maybe some minutia of information from the prisoners in the jail if any are still alive.

Thanks for the input Mark. I also am a few years away from my intense study of the assassination and rely more on info from others now. I will say that I understand your viewpoint and have never had a solid impression of Brennan's information before. I just skimmed over it and accepted it as presented. I'm starting to get a different impression now. I now see him as a 45 year old in the prime of life (I had thought him older). He was very exact in what he said (due I think to his work experience). I think that he was not a publicity seeker. He told his story, thought it would be treated fairly and went on with his life. Then, I think he had his "accident", and he was made aware that what he was saying couldn't be right and that his life and his family's lives might not be safe if he did not fall in line. Of course, there is probably no way to prove it, but I think he started going along after that (January 1964) accident. In the Mary Ferrell document he clearly states the President's car was 90 FEET (30 yards) away from him at the time of the first shot. He also states his unobstructed line of sight to the window where he saw the shooter was 90 YARDS. Since he was sitting almost 90 degrees south of the alleged sniper window, I don't think he would have made that mistake. Given his position, the shot would have been from 30 YARDS from the President. It was only approximately 90 yards to the head shot at z313. It would be interesting to "timeline" his statements, particularly the ones that can be absolutely traced to him with no outside influence prior to his "accident". I don't have the greatest resources, but may give it a shot. This eastern most window of the Dal-Tex may be impossible to research since it was never brought up and there are no known films/pictures. Until the picture was posted in this thread, I never realized the resulting angles down Elm St. as it curved. I always looked at the western windows of the Dal-Tex and southern windows of the TSBD. Those eastern windows are so far back from the acknowledged "murder scene" as to be not considered, but for a man and a scoped rifle no real problem. Maybe that also explains the first shot sounding like a firecracker.

Ron, i think this is it. Version by Alvin and the Chipmunks (1960). When I looked it up the article said it was played on the Dr. Demento radio show. David Seville-Whitch Doctor/Lyrics - YouTube

In the referenced document at the link below, Brennan makes another very confusing statement if you think he is referring to the alleged snipers nest. He states that the person he was viewing (shooter) is 90 YARDS away. He is at most 30 yards away from the TSBD building. Google earth shows the distance from Brennan's position to the TSBD as 33+/- yds. and the distance to the extreme SE Dal-Tex building as in the neighborhood of 70+/- yards. He seems to me to be very exacting in his descriptions of times, locations and distances. He seems always to use directional references from fixed landmarks. The interviewing persons always interpret or lead him back to the TSBD, but his descriptions seem to point to the Dal-Tex building and the windows on the south eastern side of it. I am going to have to go back and study as much as I can find of his actual statements. In the Mary Ferrell database there are references to trying to debunk his testimony in order to show someone other than LHO did the shooting. I think this may have contributed to many researchers not paying attention to what he was saying/pinning him down on exactly what he saw. I also saw an article in which he says he had exceptional vision at a distance. This changed after an (accident?) in January of 1964 in which his eyes were "sandblasted". I wonder if this was really an accident or if it was more coercion of witnesses. There are also references to his being discredited because he saw too many details considering the distance. Before his "accident", he would have indeed had this ability, as he relates in the newspaper article that was done before January 1964. I would post a link to the article which quotes him on his exceptional vision at a distance, but I've already lost it in the maze of websites I've visited. Mary Ferrell Chronologies - November 22, 1963, Book 1, pg 57