Richard Price

Jack Lawrence left his car somewhere in Dealey Plaza on the 22nd.  I'm not saying he was necessarily involved as I have only read a few articles on him and never focused on his activities that much.  That is a fairly well known story.  How many others could have likewise followed this procedure.  No trunks were searched as far as I know.

39 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Inquiring minds want to know.

Maybe G**** from FL among a few others.

19 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

"As indicated here, throwing away mail is the crime of obstructing mail. There is no exception for "junk mail" i.e. standard mail. It is possible (virtually guaranteed) that an individual postmaster or the USPS has a different disposition of the two kinds or mail when returned, but that is about USPS and not you. It is highly unlikely that you will find an official statement to the effect that it is "okay" to violate the law in the case of disposition of returned standard mail, even if in fact there is virtually no chance of being prosecuted for recycling."

Greg, not at all to belittle your points above, I will say that the over all effect of the US Code, Title 18 is for employees within the Postal Service, though the way the last sentence has no qualifier, as such.  I will also add that in the instances involving Ruth Payne, it would have no effect as those items are already delivered to the proper person/address.  This takes that particular law, even if it were applicable out of consideration.  If the items in question were delivered after Oswald was in jail or dead, they should have been put back in the mailbox with an endorsement (handwritten note) stating that there was no such person at the address/return to sender.  In the case of magazines/newspapers, the postal employee would have then endorsed them also and sent them through the currently existing system for destruction or return.  In the event they were delivered after his death, the rule now and I think even in 1963, was that the mail be marked with "DECEASED" handwritten to show respect.  This is the only endorsement that is officially to be handwritten, clerks and carriers use rubber stamps for all other endorsements.

Just as an aside, since until a little over 4 years ago when I retired, the US Code applied to me as a USPS employee, so I never thought to parse it out looking for other outside perspectives.  I worked with enough Postal Inspectors to understand the implications of any mishandling of any mail.  I personally was part (unfortunately) of at least three (3) persons facing criminal charges/being discharged from the USPS.  One was found to be not delivering/destroying advertisement circulars, one was stealing/destroying Overnight Express mail and the third was overstating his number of deliveries thereby increasing his pay and resulting also in destruction of standard mail in excess of actual deliveries and causing the mailer to pay for the excess on every mailing.

On 3/9/2022 at 10:12 AM, Pat Speer said:

The most overlooked fact about Brennan is that he ID'ed Oswald under the proviso Oswald was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle.

I think the most overlooked fact is that the original description of the shooter did not have on the same clothes AND - Mr. BRENNAN. Well, as it appeared to me he was STANDING UP and RESTING AGAINST THE LEFT WINDOW SILL, with gun shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand and taking positive aim and fired his last shot.  Oswald OR any gunman could not have assumed this posture, the window, as verified by photos within seconds or minutes, was only open on the bottom about half way.  He also describes the man as continuing to stand in/near to the window until after the Presidential limousine had reached the triple underpass and then slowly disappearing from sight in the window.   I do not believe this description by Brennan is in error, I believe that it is correct and he is describing a different window in a different building (the Dal-Tex) and his overall statements are purposefully obfuscated/changed almost from the outset.  Along with this alteration/obfuscation, he was controlled by way of "men in suits with credentials" who appeared almost immediately and warned him of danger to him and his family because "he was the ONLY eyewitness of the assassin".  These men immediately started surveillance/following him and controlling his ability to speak with anyone about what he had seen.  He and his family were scared out of their wits and thought they were under "protection" against harm by unknown associates of the assassin.  These same men then used their control over Brennan and his family to keep him from making on the record statements, maneuvered him into a position in which his statements could be manipulated and used against him as though he was changing his story repeatedly in order to gain publicity.  He was not sophisticated enough to understand what they were doing.  In 1963, who among us would have been.  We trusted our government, our police, our officials, etc.  One last thought - before he was taken to Washington for Warren Commission testimony (which he DID NOT want to do, as he did not want publicity, he was too fearful for his family) - he had an "accident" in which his eyes were sandblasted thereby ruining his better than 20/20 eyesight and in my opinion sending him a message (go along with where you are led or something worse may happen to your or member(s) of your family.  He never spoke about exactly how this "accident" happened, to my knowledge and never sought publicity or acclaim.  Instead he sought isolation and tried to distance himself from the awful scene he witnessed because of searching out the perfect panoramic view of the Presidential motorcade.

8 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I did not realize in my entire life until two weeks ago that it is a federal US crime to not forward junk mail--what used to be called fourth class or bulk mail, now called "standard" mail, which includes catalogs, magazines, newspapers, bulk mail advertising, commonly known as "junk mail"--that comes to an address after someone moves. I learned that for the first time from reading Tom Gram on this Ruth Paine/Oswald-newspapers issue, and seeing the law quoted and verifying it, to my amazement saw that is right, it is against the law.

Greg, just for information you can find the current "handling procedures" for the different classifications of mail in the Domestic Mail Manual(DMM), as we who work(ed) for the USPS call it.  Though the names of the mail classes has change over time, the general handling is much the same today as it was in 1963.  First Class mail and the premium services for it (Priority & Priority Express) are NEVER to be disposed of unless damaged to an exent that it is indecipherable or it is unclaimed on both the receiver's end and upon return to sender afterward.  You group a lot of mail as "Standard" that are handled differently.  The main issue with this is your assessment of magazines/newspapers as standard mail.  That is not the case.  Magazines, newspapers and periodicals are what used to be called 2nd Class mail.  They are forwardable for a short period of time after someone moves.  Once this period of time expires, if the person has not notified the publisher, they are returned (or a notice of the recipients new address is sent to the publisher.  Once that scenario has played out, they are destroyed.  The mail once called 4th Class, has a few groupings now, but then as now they were handled according to the "endorsement" made by the original mailer.  Just a short sampling of endorsements:  1) NO Endorsement, DO NOT FORWARD-DO NOT RETURN Or DO NOT FORWARD - item is trashed  2) RETURN TO SENDER - item is returned to the original mailer (postage due is charged)  3) ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUESTED - a notice of the recipients new address is sent to the mailer for a set fee & the item is destroyed .

I know these rules because I worked at USPS for 30 years from 1987 to 2107 as a clerk and was first trained as a forwarding clerk before learning the "scheme" in order to sort mail.  To my knowledge, it has never been a punishable crime to destroy/throw out anything in the Fourth Class genre of mail even with the endorsements (unless you are employed by USPS).  If you are employed by USPS, you might face disciplinary measures if you are knowingly disposing of mail which is supposed to be handled otherwise, but not charged with a crime.

10 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Have you read Stephen Hunter's novel "Third Bullet"? it is premised on a gunman from the Dal-Tex Bldg.

I have not as of yet.  I will look into it and hopefully find a copy.  I became intrigued with what Howard Brennan's statements, testimony, etc. had been and how they changed over time.  I got a copy of his book and read and reread everything I could find documented about him.  I tried to align them chronologically and clear my mind of all the interpretations provided by 3rd parties.  This, proved to be difficult as he made virtually no direct comments.  The official testimony and statements were pretty much it.  Even his book is ghostwritten so we are dealing with a 3rd party again.  His book provided much insight into his character, motivations and fundamental beliefs.  Unfortunately, the way I think and write, I could turn a short story into a novel the length of "War and Peace".  I will simply say, that upon compiling the information and trying to account for misinformation, misinterpretation and manipulation, there are underlying facts which betray how he has been portrayed and reveal important information.  This information, I think fits completely into the "professional and well planned hit" scenario and shows just how professional it was.

20 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

One can test any trajectory using the 3D model. I believe that the model suggests that Connolly may have been hit from somewhere other than the southeast corner of the sixth floor

Lawrence, does the 3D model include the Dal-Tex building, specifically the southern side and its eastern most windows.  I know I'm one of the few, if not the only one who believes this is the origin of at least one and probably two shots based on my reading of Howard Brennan's testimony and statement.  I won't go into details here as I know most have already judged Brennan and his descriptions as highly suspect.  I would however hope that someone with access/ability would test the validity of a shot from the 6th floor eastern most window of the Dal-Tex.  This would be an ideal location as I have posted about previously.  I have very limited ability to examine the premise due to age, income, distance and a variety of other issues.  I did use Google Earth to examine the view from Elm St. back to this window and found that (other than the elevated signs at the intersection) there were absolutely NO impediments to tracking the Presidential limo ALL the way to the triple underpass.

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Gil, "slowed down" and "stopped" mean two very different things depending on the context here.

Jonathan, you sound like the local policeman that stopped me for running a stop sign.  I slowed to a momentary (less than a second pause), but he claimed that I did not stop.  This very well could have been the perception during the assassination.  The limo stopped, almost imperceptibly, and then continued on.  This very small amount of film could have been excised and replaced in order to show continuity of travel.  Just as in my case, I felt and knew that I stopped, but I also knew it was not a FULL stop as required by law.  It was a pause, but other than it happening at a stop sign, most anyone viewing it would say that I stopped while going down the road.  Context does have meaning, but sometimes the words mean essentially the same thing.

3 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

The rule of law in the U.S. would collapse if Donald Trump wasn't prosecuted; the message it would send is that there are no consequences, so do whatever you want.

Matt, that is my opinion as well.  To me, the real question is, if you charge him, can you even get close to convicting him.  With so many willing to do anything, say anything and ignore anything for him.  Can you get 12 jurors who will truly be looking at the actual facts as opposed to his set of artificial facts.  I'm not sold on that.  He only needs one (1) corrupt (ed) person on that jury and he will use whatever amount of money is necessary to find/buy that person.  He and his lawyers are quite adept at finding the weak link in any chain.  He has been charged before, and even convicted and ordered to pay restitution.  He ignores the punishment because, for him there are no teeth in the enforcement.  He will simply spin the story, start a new con and use the law and lawyers to prolong his ventures.  I think we have reached the end of our exercise in being a democratic republic in either event.  If a prosecution fails to convict, the message = there is no penalty.  If no prosecution is made, the same message = there is no penalty.  We are in a catch-22.  Once almost half your population doesn't understand/comprehend truth or the extent to which this republic and the rule of law has been stressed and stretched, the odds of finding 12 good men and true are infinitesimal.

15 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Can someone please indict this guy? Please?

Steve, thank you for your diligence in posting, I still have an aversion to hearing/reading anything about "T".  However I am inexplicably drawn to it at the same time.  I too await for justice to be done.  Here, you have once again managed to post a glimpse inside his mind, with the help of his own words.

Note the last sentence, "In addition, reparations should be made to those in our country who have been damaged by this."  It's ALWAYS about the MONEY and "us" (by which he always means ME".

This may get me on somebody's watch list, but I have to say it, just like Billy Mumy on a memorable Twilight Zone (I believe it was), I sometimes think bad things about "T".  I don't have his paranormal skills though, or "T" would be out in the cornfield.

9 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

I can only give a personal view here, but on Sirhan: I think he fired shots and killed RFK, was conscious of what he was doing, premeditated it, had no lack of memory, and was lying in claiming no memory.

Greg, I have not spent nearly as much time on the RFK assassination as on the JFKA, but I would agree with you to this extent.  I am pretty confident that he fired shots, many people and things around RFK were struck by bullets.  He DID not kill RFK (and quite possibly never even hit him), the coroner's report pretty much proves that.  Mr. Noguchi was/is an extremely proficient medical examiner and his report pulls no punches.  The shots that killed RFK came from extremely close up, one leaving powder burns and the other traveling UPWARD through RFK.  Both these FACTS obliterate any case against Sirhan.  He was never close enough, nor in a position to fire such shots.  As to his state of mind, I cannot comment with any degree of certainty, but I do believe there is a strong case that he has been kept out of circulation except for APPROVED individuals who all, for one reason or another have their own biases/reasons to keep him bottled up.

Facts are facts:  Sirhan never had the opportunity to do the deed of which he is accused.  EVERY witness (without exclusion - I believe), states that he was never closer than 3 - 5 feet and never in a position to fire upward through the body of RFK who was only 5' 10" compared to Sirhan's 5' 5".

I will make this one comment on Jim Garrison's investigation/homophobia.  The following is as everyone knows the definition of phobia:  an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

Jim Garrison was an District Attorney, what he looked for, just as anyone in his position would do, is "connections" between various players in his investigation.  If he found that a number of the individuals were homosexual, that would be a link he would have to follow, just as he would if they were linked to organized crime, drug dealers, CIA, or any other.  To not do so would be to fail as an investigator.  As someone in another link mentioned, Columbo or even Sherlock Holmes would have followed the same leads.  That does not reflect a "phobia", but rather an attempt to find possibly linked individuals who may or may not have additional information on the facts of the case you are investigating.  In the search for truth, you must go wherever the facts lead you, period, end of statement.

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

"If these radical, vicious, racist prosecutors do anything wrong or illegal, I hope we are going to have in this country the biggest protest we have ever had in Washington, D.C.; in New York; in Atlanta; and elsewhere, because our country and our elections are corrupt."

Steve, he is "projecting" again.  What the above sentence means when decoded, is:

I am a radical, vicious, racist, any prosecutors trying to hold me accountable must be stopped.  I cannot do anything wrong or illegal, because I am a god and NEVER wrong.  I hope I am going to provoke the biggest protests the country has ever had in Washington, D.C.; in New York; in Atlanta; and elsewhere, because if I do not, I may finally have to face an hour of judgement.  Your country and Your elections are corrupt unless they validate ME.

2 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

3 squares a day.. I can't wait.

Steve, I have told people for over 30 years that I would be going to prison one day as a "dissident", but that I would come out a lawyer with all the free study/reading time.  At my now more advanced age and experience, I now no longer aspire to being a lawyer, but the 3 square a day is quite appealing and I have an even larger reading list.  See you there!

34 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, in a perverse sense, it's not surprising that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-South Carolina) is evoking the old "slave patrol" Second Amendment today as a threat against a black woman who has been actively working to enforce and protect the 15th Amendment right of black citizens to vote.

It is a minor error on your part, W., but Marjorie Taylor Greene is a Republican member from extreme (excuse the pun), north Georgia at the Tennessee state line.  Steve correctly referred to her in his post.  It's not that I want to claim her, (I'm from GA) but just to correct the facts.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

You are apparently unfamiliar with CE 477, in which Brennan demonstrated his position. He placed himself several feet to the west and in much better position to view a sniper sitting back and to the east of the window.

Pat, I will not belabor the point, but I will hopefully have additional comment at a later time after some research.  I will say that the photo(s) as shown in exhibits 477/478 were taken at the direction of the Warren Commission and should be subject to some scrutiny, such as:  Was he positioned by the cameraman/lawyer setting up the photos or was he allowed to assume his position on his own recognizance.  Was he told to get in his EXACT position or just go sit near where you sat on 11/22.  With the amount of influence, some might even say coercion used on some of the witnesses, in order to get the "required/acceptable WC" answers, it needs to be examined with an open mind.  After all, Atty. Belin would NEVER stoop so low as to misrepresent witness testimony, would he?

8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Brennan, on the other hand, almost certainly fibbed about his location.

Pat, I know you are considered an authority on much about the assassination, but on this you are obviously and provably incorrect.  In the picture posted directly above (John Butler - January 2, 2022), there sits Brennan exactly where he said he was, just to the east of center by a few feet peering directly into the Presidential limo as it

turns onto Elm.  Brennan had as he said, a PANORAMIC view of the intersection, the TSBD and the Dal-Tex building.  To say he was not sitting in the center because he is a few feet to off is disingenuous.  I think Brennan himself only claimed to be "near the center of the wall".  He definitely did claim to have a "panoramic view".

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'd love to see some proof and if it could be corroborated it would indeed explain a lot of things

Thank you for your well considered responses.  That is exactly what I was alluding to in my earlier posts.  I had/have hopes that you or some of the other excellent researchers doing the slog through all the background documents and players might have some nugget of information or document that might tie into the contingency planning and produce results.  I do not have the necessary tools, experience or resources at this late date to help much.  I, like you would love the see the proof.  When you mentioned the "contingency plan", it was like a flash bulb in my mind and tied so many things together.  I will continue reading, watching and delving as deeply as I can for clues to tie it all together and I hope others with more resources and skills will also.  This, if any documentation exists, (and I think it must*), may just finally provide the fingerprints of the assassination's lead planners. 

*  I think it must exist if the plan existed because it was not brought into existence for the assassination, but for averting war.  I don't have a clue how the government files or keeps documentation of what would have to be "TOP SECRET" operation.  In order for it (the contingency plan) to be executed when the situation called for it, someone or group at a top national security level would have to have access to it and knowledge of it.  Anyone below the applied security level would just be informed that what they were doing was a matter of national security.

52 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

He "had" to say that.

Joe, as you said, he did have to say that in public.  As I said (probably poorly) in my post of 01/06, the coverup being run was part of his and JFK's contingency plan on making sure that things didn't get out of hand during a scenario just like what had happened.  My guess is that he would have understood why the contingency plan was being invoked and due to his being a part of it's original planning, would have endorsed it.  I don't think it took him long to figure out how the very people it was supposed to "control" were using it against him/JFK and as a complete cover-up for those responsible for carrying out the assassination.  I think he knew pretty quickly that there was no participation from a group that could have caused an international emergency nor merited military action.  He was ensnared by the very plan he had helped originate, just long enough that there was no way out.  His only way to come to terms with this, is to wait, attain enough power (the Presidency), and then expose the people and planning behind the assassination.  This is why he was killed.  He also would have known that he had to be tight lipped and keep this knowledge to himself.

As a secondary thought, the use of the contingency plan tells me why there has been the many years of success in keeping a lid on the truth.  The contingency plan "IS" the "TOP SECRET" in the assassination.  It, and it's usage defines who was behind the assassination.  The contingency plan gave the planners free reign to classify things which otherwise could not have been classified Top Secret (and above).  This allowed for classification of things totally unrelated to the assassination to be included.  I have now, since Larry Hancock mentioned the "contingency plan" for the first time (to my knowledge) a few days ago come to think of it as the Rosetta stone to the whole assassination.

The contingency plan was not used after the fact for it's original purposes, it was used proactively as part of the planning, with the end goal of it's invocation causing the plotters to not only succeed, but to continue on with impunity.  They would hold the levers of power and the power of "National Security" to head off any and all who would question.  It was like having a "Get Out of Jail" card in hand before committing the act.  It is my hope that Larry and others who have the abilities and resources will now explore this contingency plan with the same zeal and success that they have applied to all the other things they have brought to light.  I hope my insights help.  This is not a "pet" idea and I am not stating anything as fact.  I only hope that this idea will be explored by those who know so much more on the subject.  In the end, my only hope has been and is, that the facts around the assassination (and hopefully the perpetrators) will be found in my lifetime.  I have been following and trying to add to the understanding since June 6, 1968 (age 12+) when I knew for sure, things were not right.

17 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Thanks for your help folks

John, once you are logged in, scroll to the top of the page under the title "Education Forum".  On the left edge of the page and within the blue banner you will see Browse/Activity/Store/Support.  Click on Store and under that you will see "Donations" to the extreme left.  When you click on that you will see a page that says Current Donation Goals with a blue button in center at the bottom of the page.  When you click the button it will open a page on which you can type in your donation amount.

20 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

The planning involved setting up a special set of protocols, and began not long after the missile crisis, underway by early 1963.  Interestingly enough, due to the concerns that a perceived Cuban act would trigger it, the first person assigned to lead the effort was William Harvey.

I have to say, in my view, this may be one of the missing puzzle pieces.  In the words better spoken by the late great, Norm Crosby (one of my favorites), I think you may have just killed one bird with two stones.  This emergency planning just may be be both the corner stone and the key stone of the JFK assassination.  There were people all around JFK at the highest levels of his government agencies, who, some known & some not, were plotting and planning his demise.  Seeing this information was like one of those "Aha!  That is it, Watson!" moments in a Sherlock Holmes mystery for me.  If the information is out there somewhere, it may be the Rosetta stone as well.  I could see the official contingency plan as having been known by one or more unscrupulous, corrupt individual whose back was to the wall and who was capable of very astute planning, manipulation of persons around him and with access to others also having the levers of power and similar sentiment.  All it would have taken was some back room idle chatter about how the levers could be pulled and all the "problems" that would disappear if implemented.  I wonder if the origin dates of this contingency plan can be determined, if it might not line up with some of the other things you have been slowly pegging down, might come into clearer focus (the cornerstone).  This would fall right in line with other operations run by the CIA which were learned about and co-oped or piggy backed, only this time INSIDE the US.  I think the thought of using one of JFK/RFK's own plans ON them would have been relished and even joked about within this small group.  I am no scholar on the inner workings of the JFK administration nor the assassination planning, but it all fits.  LBJ had great control of many things in Texas, had access to much information within the White House, was extremely corrupt and a master manipulator/strategist.  He stood to gain the most by JFK's death and would have the greatest power afterward if it succeeded.  I will not assume that he is definitely the one, but he has all the necessary equipment to do the job, including longstanding relationships with the necessary conspirators.  The contingency plan is how they were to succeed and cover up the entire thing (the keystone).  Without the contingency plan, it all becomes extremely dangerous, with the contingency plan, all the power is held in the hands of the plotters.  Please let me know if you think this is plausible in your estimation.  If it is, the genesis of the assassination as a viable, survivable plan for the plotters, is somewhere soon after the validation of this contingency planning to keep the US from over reacting and can be blamed on JFK and RFK, putting RFK squarely in the middle and probably figuring it out pretty quickly, but unable to say much, if anything.  The cards were supremely played in my estimation.

59 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

But I can say with the individuals I referred to its all personal, back to the "don't tread on me, I'll do what I want to and I have a gun" attitude.

Very much the sentiment in my area of Georgia.  Since I am retired, not working in the local post office, I have few interactions with the public anymore, thank goodness.  My county is over 80% Trumpublicans (not just Republicans).  I only share my political views with a very limited number of folks while at the post office and even less now.  I have, by speaking out politically, lost contact with most of my family (who prefer it that way), my best friend from 1968 onward and cannot talk to many of my neighbors.  On a personal note, since you are much more well known, be careful out there, you just don't know what people will do currently. 

6 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Part of my New Years resolution to be totally transparent and contrarian at my advanced age.  Probably brought about by seeing too many vehicles around me with "F Biden and anyone who supports this presidency"  and "Trump is our Leader".

Thanks for your comment, Larry.  Down here in GA, there are Trump 2020 signs that still haven't been taken down as well as the Confederate flags flying.  I too, have adopted this concept (only a little earlier than you did).  Some would say it has always been a part of my persona, just hidden below the surface.  But all that aside, I will comment on your actual content.  I agree in essence.  I firmly believe that with Trump all you have to do is "follow the money".  That is his guiding beacon, he doesn't give a D*@N about any other concepts or principles.

5 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Recently I noticed Jackie's head movement in frames 294/295 is as great as JFK's head movement from 312 to 313.

Chris, I believe that it may have been posited here previous posts that the forward motion is a result of the braking of the car at this point.  If you notice, ALL the occupants shown move forward at a similar time and distance.

5 hours ago, Don Roberdeau said:

People.... how very close the Dal-Tex Building bullet trajectory(s)
actually come to matching the Depository, so, they have never
shown a sniper’s targeting view from the Dal-Tex roof line)

Don, I am an outlier on the subject of the Dal-Tex being the source of one or more shots as far as the forum goes.  I am far from an expert on any of the subjects broached here and have never had the time or resources to make any kind of in depth studies, but I have been a student of all researchers by reading, watching or listening to as much material as I could find, since the age of 8 when the assassination happened.  I finally got the chance to explore Howard Brennan's story this last year.  I had always done the same as most researchers and brushed his story off (accepting what he was said to have said).  One foundational trait I have that is similar to an investigative journalist or detective is that I have an ability to read between the lines/ to assess a person's character as it relates to their actions.  To make a long story a little shorter, after reading his book and looking up everything I could find about him (which is sparse), I came to the conclusion that he told the truth on 11/22/63, but quickly fell in line with the officials and official story (for his and his family's safety).  I know most will disagree but I (as Sherlock Holmes would say) deduced a few items from what I found.  Among those things were:  He was a very religious man, he was a very family oriented man, he was an engineer, he was not someone who sought out the spotlight and he was very much a man of his times (trusted the government and it's officials).

He spent his entire life (after 11/22/63) regretting that he had ever chosen to find the best place in the plaza to get a "panoramic" view of the parade.  This was because he told the truth immediately after the assassination and was told that he had possibly the MOST important information about the assailant and to be very careful and NOT SAY anything to anyone because he might be in danger.  He took this to heart (government officials were telling him after all).  Then before he even considered what was happening, he experienced pressure from these same officials.  He was told that some things about his statements were not in alignment with the "official" story while still insisting that he might be in danger for telling his story to anyone (other than the officials who were now pressuring him).  Now I will skip the "heart and soul" of the story and just say this:  On 11/22/63, Howard Brennan told officials, both in writing and verbally that the assassin was standing in the window of the 2nd floor down from the roof (6th floor) on the EAST end of the "RED BRICK" building.  If you look at the TSBD versus Dal-Tex, one of the first things that you will see is that the Dal-Tex is a dark red vs the TSBD's brown coloring.  I will interject just these few thoughts from the overall story.  He said the man was making NO attempt to stay out of sight.  This was because the shooter in this location was behind the lines of sight of almost everyone lined up to watch the parade.  Those who were not facing away from this location had their eyes drawn to ground level with the sounds and sights of the parade (which is what they came for).  They had NO REASON to look up.  The only people who could have seen this man would have been those in the building across the street (who also had no reason to look UP - either).  The jail would have been on a similar level to the shooter and would have afforded the one of the best views while also having the only "controlled" witnesses.  This, I confess may have been just a "lucky coincidence" or perhaps part of the plan (it can't be ruled out).  It depends on who did the planning and was in control (a whole different story).  This, in my opinion another mark of a professional "hit".  Virtually no one would have a chance of seeing this perpetrator (but reportedly at least one prisoner did).  Anyone in a higher location would have had their eyes trained downward making it unlikely they would have seen anything as long as the shooter did not make quick or extravagant motions.  Brennan describes the man as calm, cool and just looking down like everyone else (except he had a rifle).

In short, Howard Brennan chose the one location where a person could see the parade from the corner of Main, down Houston, onto Elm and by fate the location of a perfectly placed assassin.  He too would have seen nothing aside from the fact that the parade was late and having sat there for some time, just happened to glance upwards (perhaps as he stretched or tried to get more comfortable on his perch).  Then by coincidence again, he had better than 20/20 eyesight (until about January of 1964) and could see this person better than most.  Even with this, he only thought the gunman must be part of Presidential security - UNTIL he heard the sound of gunfire and looked up again, only to see the man shoot.  If you read Howard Brennan's story and suspend your "official" narrative story-line, you will see that fate dealt him a cruel blow that day as well as JFK.  His life was a living Hell from the moment he told the story of his view on that first day.

A last thought:  I only discovered by using Google Maps just how good a location this was for an assassin.  This window, unlike the TSBD official window, affords a completely unrestricted view of the Presidential limo from before the corner of Houston & Elm all the way to the triple underpass.  Previously, I had tried to "find" a location in the Dal-Tex (west side) on the facade facing the TSBD, not realizing the amazing alignment of the south side of the Dal-Tex.