Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Josephs a question for you


Recommended Posts

Mike,

Here is my final take on Howard Brennan bearing in mind our debate over his witness testimony and line-up attendance.

You suggest that you follow the evidence without prejudice.

Brennan claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

Arnold Rowland claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to believe Brennan, but disregarded his description.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to disbelieve Rowland because they were unhappy that he saw an elderly black man in the sixth floor window some minutes prior to the man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, taking his shots at the president.

Why?

If they believed Rowland then it puts a third man on the sixth floor in the lead up to the shooting. The Warren Commission had already coerced a change of testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams to say he was on the sixth floor eating his lunch prior to the shooting. He claims there was no one else on the sixth floor. They needed Williams up there to get rid of the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper bottle mystery when in actual fact he more than likely wasn’t on the sixth floor eating his lunch. Please see Greg Parker's website concerning Eddie Piper.

You see Mike; this is the problem with what the FBI, DPD and WC did. They fudged and intimidated testimony from certain people to fit the evidence but they opened up more problems for themselves. Arlen Specter’s handling of Arnold Rowland during his testimony is transparent and there for all to see. Specter’s job was simply to undermine Rowland’s credibility on the stand and it, for me, is appalling to read.

So, the FBI had their star witness in Mr. Brennan and would do their best to destroy Rowland. You claim that you believe Brennan’s testimony. You claim that testimony is evidence. But you do what you accuse others of here on this board. You cherry pick what you like from his testimony versus what you don’t. You think he saw Oswald in the window but his memory recall was so good that he didn’t identify him during the line-up he attended on the evening of the 22nd. He couldn't even count to four. To talk himself out of this, Brennan then came up with an excuse (or an excuse was given to him) as to why he didn’t pick Oswald out of the line-up. He claimed that he thought there was a “communist conspiracy” to kill JFK and he was the ONLY witness (how he knew this I do not know) to the shooting and therefore felt his family may be in danger. He stated in his Warren Commission testimony that once Oswald was dead he was relieved and in actual FACT could have identified him.

There’s a problem with this story Mike. Brennan made a further statement, after his initial one on the 22nd November. December 17th 1963 this is what he said:

"He advised that at about 7 P.M., November 22, 1963, when he observed a line-up of individuals at the Dallas Police Department he selected Lee Harvey Oswald as the individual most closely resembling the person whom he had seen with a rifle in the widow of the TSBD building. He said this was the extreme East window of the sixth floor on the front side of the TSBD building where he observed this individual. He noted that he was seated on a wall across Elm Street from the TSBD at the time the Presidential motorcade passed. He stated that he now can say that he is sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President’s assassination. He pointed out that he felt that a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 93, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tipppit. He said that another factor which made him hesitate to make a positive identification of Oswald in the police line-up was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of Oswald on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said that he felt that since he had seen Oswald on television before picking Oswald out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification he made of Oswald at that time."

So on November 22nd in his affidavit he claimed he “could identify the man again.” He was supposedly invited to a line-up that night but then didn’t identify Oswald. He makes a statement on the 17th December claiming he can now identify Oswald and he didn’t identify him in November because he felt he didn’t need to and that seeing a picture of Oswald on TV prior to the line-up may have clouded his judgement.

There’s then ANOTHER affidavit taken on the January 7th 1964. In this one he states:

"Mr. Brennan advised that on November 22, 1963, after finishing lunch at about 12:18 PM, he sat on a retainer wall directly across from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building, on Elm Street. While he was sitting there, he looked up at the TSBD building and noticed that there was a man standing in the sixth floor window; however, at this time, this man did not have a rifle. He said he then turned around and noticed that the man had left the window. Then he turned his head back toward the South where the Presidential motorcade would come. Approximately ten minutes after sitting down on this retaining wall, the Presidential motorcade turned onto Houston Street, and he was able to see President Kennedy and his wife pass approximately thirty yards west on Elm from where he was seated. The car passed out of sight and shortly thereafter, he heard one shot, which he first believed to have been a firecracker, and he immediately looked toward the TSBD building and saw a man on the sixth floor in the same window, near the southeast corner of the building, and noticed that this man took deliberate aim and shot the rifle again. When he saw the man shoot the rifle this time, he realized it was the same man that he had seen standing in the window a few minutes before. After the last shot, he immediately fell off the retaining wall and ran for an officer so that he could advise the police and Secret Service that the man whom he had seen take the last shot was in the TSBD building. ... Mr. Brennan added that after his first interview at the Sheriff’s office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 PM. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, he observed Lee Harvey Oswald’s picture on television.

Mr. Brennan said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police lineup, he felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window."

No communist conspiracy, no fear for his family. Both statements made LONG after Oswald was dead. This is your witness Mike. As mentioned in other threads, the only one you have to claim that Oswald was in that window. And you believe him? Jesus…

Helen Markham has more credibility than this guy. You want me to follow the evidence without prejudice Mike? I do and it leads me to conspiracy and monstrous cover-up every single time. Here’s one more thing for you to consider if you want to take his testimony at face value (cherry picked of course).

Mr. MCCLOY. How long did it take you, do you think, from the time of the - when you first got up - from the time of the last shot, how long would you estimate it would be before you got to the steps of the Texas Book Depository?

Mr. BRENNAN. I could not calculate that, because before I got to the steps of the Texas Book Store, I had already talked to this officer, and he had taken me to the Secret Service men, I had talked to them.

Mr. MCCLOY. And you stayed behind the retaining wall for a little while until you saw the coast was clear?

Mr. BRENNAN. Just seconds. I would say from the time the last shot was fired, and me diving off the wall there, and getting around on the solid side, and then running across to the officer, the time element is hard to figure, but it would still be in seconds.

So your precious witness, says within seconds he told an officer that he had seen, with his own eyes, a man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, who had shot the president from the south-east corner window of the second set of windows under the roof and it took them 40-45 minutes to find the bloody snipers nest? Instead of that officer, the minute Brennan informed of this, demanding all exits sealed and elevators and stairwells covered so they could arrest anyone in their thirties wearing light coloured clothing coming off those elevators or down those stairs, what did the officer do? He first told him to “wait there” and then went with Mr. Brennan to find “the secret service men” that took according to Howard Brennan 3-5 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if this so-called officer got a nice juicy promotion promoted after this effort...

Follow the evidence Mike. Without prejudice. If you don’t see this case for what it truly is, then you are truly lost…

Lee

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot!

The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Here is my final take on Howard Brennan bearing in mind our debate over his witness testimony and line-up attendance.

You suggest that you follow the evidence without prejudice.

Brennan claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

Arnold Rowland claims he saw a man in his early thirties wearing light coloured clothing. This is not Oswald.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to believe Brennan, but disregarded his description.

The FBI and the Warren Commission decided to disbelieve Rowland because they were unhappy that he saw an elderly black man in the sixth floor window some minutes prior to the man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, taking his shots at the president.

Why?

If they believed Rowland then it puts a third man on the sixth floor in the lead up to the shooting. The Warren Commission had already coerced a change of testimony from Bonnie Ray Williams to say he was on the sixth floor eating his lunch prior to the shooting. He claims there was no one else on the sixth floor. They needed Williams up there to get rid of the chicken bones and Dr. Pepper bottle mystery when in actual fact he more than likely wasn’t on the sixth floor eating his lunch. Please see Greg Parker's website concerning Eddie Piper.

You see Mike; this is the problem with what the FBI, DPD and WC did. They fudged and intimidated testimony from certain people to fit the evidence but they opened up more problems for themselves. Arlen Specter’s handling of Arnold Rowland during his testimony is transparent and there for all to see. Specter’s job was simply to undermine Rowland’s credibility on the stand and it, for me, is appalling to read.

So, the FBI had their star witness in Mr. Brennan and would do their best to destroy Rowland. You claim that you believe Brennan’s testimony. You claim that testimony is evidence. But you do what you accuse others of here on this board. You cherry pick what you like from his testimony versus what you don’t. You think he saw Oswald in the window but his memory recall was so good that he didn’t identify him during the line-up he attended on the evening of the 22nd. He couldn't even count to four. To talk himself out of this, Brennan then came up with an excuse (or an excuse was given to him) as to why he didn’t pick Oswald out of the line-up. He claimed that he thought there was a “communist conspiracy” to kill JFK and he was the ONLY witness (how he knew this I do not know) to the shooting and therefore felt his family may be in danger. He stated in his Warren Commission testimony that once Oswald was dead he was relieved and in actual FACT could have identified him.

There’s a problem with this story Mike. Brennan made a further statement, after his initial one on the 22nd November. December 17th 1963 this is what he said:

"He advised that at about 7 P.M., November 22, 1963, when he observed a line-up of individuals at the Dallas Police Department he selected Lee Harvey Oswald as the individual most closely resembling the person whom he had seen with a rifle in the widow of the TSBD building. He said this was the extreme East window of the sixth floor on the front side of the TSBD building where he observed this individual. He noted that he was seated on a wall across Elm Street from the TSBD at the time the Presidential motorcade passed. He stated that he now can say that he is sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the person he saw in the window at the time of the President’s assassination. He pointed out that he felt that a positive identification was not necessary when he observed Oswald in the police line-up at the Dallas Police Department at about 7 P.M., November 22, 93, since it was his understanding Oswald had already been charged with the slaying of Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tipppit. He said that another factor which made him hesitate to make a positive identification of Oswald in the police line-up was that prior to appearing at the police line-up on November 22, 1963, he had observed a picture of Oswald on his television set at home when his daughter asked him to watch it. He said that he felt that since he had seen Oswald on television before picking Oswald out of the line-up at the police station that it tended to "cloud" any identification he made of Oswald at that time."

So on November 22nd in his affidavit he claimed he “could identify the man again.” He was supposedly invited to a line-up that night but then didn’t identify Oswald. He makes a statement on the 17th December claiming he can now identify Oswald and he didn’t identify him in November because he felt he didn’t need to and that seeing a picture of Oswald on TV prior to the line-up may have clouded his judgement.

There’s then ANOTHER affidavit taken on the January 7th 1964. In this one he states:

"Mr. Brennan advised that on November 22, 1963, after finishing lunch at about 12:18 PM, he sat on a retainer wall directly across from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) building, on Elm Street. While he was sitting there, he looked up at the TSBD building and noticed that there was a man standing in the sixth floor window; however, at this time, this man did not have a rifle. He said he then turned around and noticed that the man had left the window. Then he turned his head back toward the South where the Presidential motorcade would come. Approximately ten minutes after sitting down on this retaining wall, the Presidential motorcade turned onto Houston Street, and he was able to see President Kennedy and his wife pass approximately thirty yards west on Elm from where he was seated. The car passed out of sight and shortly thereafter, he heard one shot, which he first believed to have been a firecracker, and he immediately looked toward the TSBD building and saw a man on the sixth floor in the same window, near the southeast corner of the building, and noticed that this man took deliberate aim and shot the rifle again. When he saw the man shoot the rifle this time, he realized it was the same man that he had seen standing in the window a few minutes before. After the last shot, he immediately fell off the retaining wall and ran for an officer so that he could advise the police and Secret Service that the man whom he had seen take the last shot was in the TSBD building. ... Mr. Brennan added that after his first interview at the Sheriff’s office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 PM. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President Kennedy, he observed Lee Harvey Oswald’s picture on television.

Mr. Brennan said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing Lee Harvey Oswald in the police lineup, he felt that Oswald most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window."

No communist conspiracy, no fear for his family. Both statements made LONG after Oswald was dead. This is your witness Mike. As mentioned in other threads, the only one you have to claim that Oswald was in that window. And you believe him? Jesus…

Helen Markham has more credibility than this guy. You want me to follow the evidence without prejudice Mike? I do and it leads me to conspiracy and monstrous cover-up every single time. Here’s one more thing for you to consider if you want to take his testimony at face value (cherry picked of course).

Mr. MCCLOY. How long did it take you, do you think, from the time of the - when you first got up - from the time of the last shot, how long would you estimate it would be before you got to the steps of the Texas Book Depository?

Mr. BRENNAN. I could not calculate that, because before I got to the steps of the Texas Book Store, I had already talked to this officer, and he had taken me to the Secret Service men, I had talked to them.

Mr. MCCLOY. And you stayed behind the retaining wall for a little while until you saw the coast was clear?

Mr. BRENNAN. Just seconds. I would say from the time the last shot was fired, and me diving off the wall there, and getting around on the solid side, and then running across to the officer, the time element is hard to figure, but it would still be in seconds.

So your precious witness, says within seconds he told an officer that he had seen, with his own eyes, a man in his thirties, wearing light coloured clothing, who had shot the president from the south-east corner window of the second set of windows under the roof and it took them 40-45 minutes to find the bloody snipers nest? Instead of that officer, the minute Brennan informed of this, demanding all exits sealed and elevators and stairwells covered so they could arrest anyone in their thirties wearing light coloured clothing coming off those elevators or down those stairs, what did the officer do? He first told him to “wait there” and then went with Mr. Brennan to find “the secret service men” that took according to Howard Brennan 3-5 minutes. I wouldn't be surprised if this so-called officer got a nice juicy promotion promoted after this effort...

Follow the evidence Mike. Without prejudice. If you don’t see this case for what it truly is, then you are truly lost…

Lee

So then you can prove without fail conspiracy? I suspect you disregard his testimony, for the very same reason you accuse me of accepting it. Because it does not support your conclusion. However, how many times does Brennan say he CAN identify Oswald? Several. That's pretty telling in itself. I have to laugh when someone from the CT side claims that they could not believe Brennan was afraid, and then talks about how witnesses were killed. OF course the man was afraid, and he believed it was a communist plot. So then, why was he afraid after Oswald was "long dead"? Simple. He thought that it was a communist plot, which he believed contained more than one person, why should he not be afraid after Oswald's death, he still believed there was remaining members of the plot!

The facts, 47 years later indicate one gunman from behind and not a shred of evidence for conspiracy at all. One would think after 47 years some should have surfaced, and yet, not one credible piece has. The one interesting observation, is that whenever a CT claims the proof is solid, it always seems to wash out when scrutinized.

I expected that level of reply to what I have written Mike. I'm not here to "prove" anything. Your government had the accountability to "prove" things and they failed miserably in 1963-64. Your own government then proved conspiracy in 1979 and requested the Justice Department investigate further. Do you not know this?

As far as Brennan is concerned. Your witness lied. So he has zero credibility. Ignore him and what do you have? You have nothing but dodgy palm prints and dodgy gun adverts.

I don't care if he was afraid that the "communists" were coming to get him. He lied. He had two opportunities to put this on record AFTER Oswald was dead and he didn't take them. He lied. Pure and simple. It's his words that I use. He said he was "relieved" when Oswald was dead, not me. If the shoe was on the other foot then you'd brush him aside the way you do Roger Craig.

He attended a line-up but couldn't count to four. He attended a line-up with the Davis sisters and they don't remember him being there. His attendance at the line-up was added to the Davis card the way Marion Baker's identification of Oswald was added to the end of Marvin Johnson's report into the events of the day.

You make assumptions about my beliefs in the case concerning shots from behind versus from the front and you can't deal with the inconsistencies I present. You're not suspicious of the police reaction to Brennan's claims? You have no answer for that level of ineptitude? You have no qualms that if Brennan's testimony is true that the police possibly let the killer go? You know the guy with the light clothing? Kinda like the guy that Baker accosted on the stairs of the third or fourth floor wearing a light brown jacket? You don't find it strange that Baker's testimony changed quite dramatically from his 22nd November affidavit? Good Lord!!

I asked you a question about Oswald's FLASH being removed by the FBI in October 1963. You claim faulty sources. My source is FBI Agent James Hosty and released FBI and CIA files. You have NO ANSWERS. And you can go and consult with DVP all you want on this issue because he won't have any either. He may tell you to claim "faulty sources"...hey wait a minute.

I really thought you were interested in debating the issues but then you come out with a garbage line that with CT viewpoints the "things wash out" when "scrutinised." You mean like DVP when he washes his undies? Here's some DVP "undie washing." FBI Agent Bob Barrett saw a wallet being "scrutinised" at the scene of the Tippit murder by Captain Westbrook. Westbrook asked Barrett if he knew Lee Oswald or Alex Hidell. Barrett said no. The wallet was caught on camera. Westbrook denied there was a wallet at the scene but because of the photographic evidence DVP knows he had to answer it. He claims it was Ted Callaway's. End of story.

Unfortunately he ignores the fact that Ted Callaway said it wasn't. That certainly washed that one away, just like the brum brums in the aforementioned DVP underwear.

That's the level of scrutiny your side of the argument can come up with? You love the minutea of the case because you can just keep pinging things backwards and forewards BUT the bigger issues and the bigger picture, such as the FLASH removal and Oswald being impersonated in Mexico, you have NO ANSWERS for.

Over and out

Lee

All that comedy in so few words!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What was his occupation?

I believe he was steamfitter John. I don't know the answers to the other two questions you posed.

Hope you're well

Lee

Same to you. Lee.

Do you, or anyone, know what exactly was a steamfitter in Dallas in 1963?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW.

In the early 1980's while walking along the main road near to where I live, I was approached by the police, and asked if I would take part in a police line up.

A bus driver had been slashed on the face. I accepted, and they paid me a small fee to stand in the line up.

At the line up, the first witness, a woman, picked me as the slasher, and obviously WTF? went through my head.

The rest of the witnesses chose someone else, who was in fact the real slasher. That's all I can remember about it.

I don't remember how many people were in the line up, and I don't remember if they were white or black or any other race.

I don't remember the sex of the witnesses, other than the woman who chose me, who was white.

I don't remember how many witnesses there were at the line up either.

Duncan

So Duncan, what you are saying is...

...if you ever see someone shooting the President of the United States from a Sixth Floor window WE should, by your own admission, not believe anything you "might remember" about the height, weight, hair color, clothing, sex and even skin color of the person you claim to have seen because you have an extremely poor short and long term memory.

Thanks for clearing that up.

My confusion now is, after explaining to us the falliblity of human perceptions and memory, are you expecting us to believe that Howard Brennan remembered what Lee Harvey Oswald's face looked like after seeing it for a couple of seconds from 110 feet away?

Lee

P.S. "WTF" must have been what Lee Oswald was saying to himself when people started picking him out in "error" too

Lee,

I didn't say anything that you attribute to me. I gave you my story and that was it.

I will say however, that I believe Brennan could have seen the shooter, but I don't believe that he could have seen enough of him to positively identify him as Oswald.

I believe that he could have seen the third shot fired, but I also believe that is humanly impossible for him to have also seen the impact of the third shot, as he said he had done.

For that reason alone, I would discount him as a reliable witness.

Duncan

I find it interesting that the one person you remember was the one directly involved with you, in that she picked you.

This proves my point exactly. Why should Brennan have remembered how man where in the line up? He was looking for one, specific person, that he had direct tie to, in that he had seen this person before.

Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant?

In a similar manner, the one person you remember was relevant in that she fingered you!

Perfect assimilation Duncan.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To post it yet again... directly from the Lone Nutter's Bible

http://www.history-m...eport_0085a.htm

Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.”

So what does the WC base it's conclusion upon?

1 - Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald.

2 - Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe.

3 - The Baker/Truly encounter! is actually used to place Oswald in the window... the fact that he was on the 2nd floor at 12:31 and could have made the trip down is what the WC provides as proof that he was in the window shooting 1 minute before.

4 - Vitoria Adams ran down the back stairs supposed ahead of Oswald and before Baker/Truly came up and yet saw neither

5 - Mrs. Reid sees Oswald AFTER Baker/Truly so surely her testimony places him in the SE 6th floor window 2-3 minutes before ?!?!

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0090b.htm

The conclusion is classic WCR mumbo jumbo

Conclusion

Fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald handled

two of the four cartons next to the window and also handled a paper

bag which was found near the cartons. Oswald was seen in the vicinity

of the southeast corner of the sixth floor approximately 35 minutes before

the assassination and no one could be found who saw Oswald anywhere

else in the building until after the shooting. {we know this to be false...

a number of people see Oswald between 11:55 and 12:25} An eyewitness to

the shooting immediately provided a description of the man in the window

which was similar to Oswald’s actual appearance. This witness

identified Oswald in a lineup as the man most nearly resembling the

man he saw and later identified Oswald as the man he observed.{really?} Oswald’s

known actions in the building immediately after the assassination

are consistent with his having been at the southeast corner window

of the sixth floor at 12:30 p.m. On the basis of these findings the Commission

has concluded that Oswald, at the time of the assassination,

was present at the window from which the shots were fired. {emphasis added}

Sum it up.... no one saw him in the window shooting but he must have been there... He must have.

:blink:

Duncan...

you could see the person who identified you??? Thought they were supposed to protect the identity of the witness at a line up so they wouldn't be afraid to ID the right person... the guy she did ID saw her as well??

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW.

In the early 1980's while walking along the main road near to where I live, I was approached by the police, and asked if I would take part in a police line up.

A bus driver had been slashed on the face. I accepted, and they paid me a small fee to stand in the line up.

At the line up, the first witness, a woman, picked me as the slasher, and obviously WTF? went through my head.

The rest of the witnesses chose someone else, who was in fact the real slasher. That's all I can remember about it.

I don't remember how many people were in the line up, and I don't remember if they were white or black or any other race.

I don't remember the sex of the witnesses, other than the woman who chose me, who was white.

I don't remember how many witnesses there were at the line up either.

Duncan

So Duncan, what you are saying is...

...if you ever see someone shooting the President of the United States from a Sixth Floor window WE should, by your own admission, not believe anything you "might remember" about the height, weight, hair color, clothing, sex and even skin color of the person you claim to have seen because you have an extremely poor short and long term memory.

Thanks for clearing that up.

My confusion now is, after explaining to us the falliblity of human perceptions and memory, are you expecting us to believe that Howard Brennan remembered what Lee Harvey Oswald's face looked like after seeing it for a couple of seconds from 110 feet away?

Lee

P.S. "WTF" must have been what Lee Oswald was saying to himself when people started picking him out in "error" too

Lee,

I didn't say anything that you attribute to me. I gave you my story and that was it.

I will say however, that I believe Brennan could have seen the shooter, but I don't believe that he could have seen enough of him to positively identify him as Oswald.

I believe that he could have seen the third shot fired, but I also believe that is humanly impossible for him to have also seen the impact of the third shot, as he said he had done.

For that reason alone, I would discount him as a reliable witness.

Duncan

I find it interesting that the one person you remember was the one directly involved with you, in that she picked you.

This proves my point exactly. Why should Brennan have remembered how man where in the line up? He was looking for one, specific person, that he had direct tie to, in that he had seen this person before.

Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant?

In a similar manner, the one person you remember was relevant in that she fingered you!

Perfect assimilation Duncan.

Mike

Mike

Complete nonsense trying to square up (assimilate) Duncan's experience with that of Howard Brennan's.

I don't know what type of lineups you're thinking of here but all lineups that are conducted fairly are done where the people in the lineup CANNOT SEE the witness on the other side of either a one-way:

i) Curtain

or

ii) Window

Maybe you are thinking of lineups that are perhaps conducted in Somalia or Salem, MA in 1692?

Lee

P.S. Your comment "Why would he remember anyone else who was irrelevant?" (Sic) I've explained the very simple process of lineups to you already. You're still adamant that your witness shouldn't have to remember how many people were in the room. My answer to that is, so what? You want everyone to believe that Brennan could, from 110 feet away on a bright noon day and at an upward angle, remember Oswald's face, clothing, height, weight and hair color - but he couldn't remember that there were four people in his "lineup"? Four? With number's painted over their heads? And Oswald was number two? And he would have been asked to look up and down at all four of them before making a decision? That he didn't make...and the fact that they were all white was also lost on him? In Dallas, in 1963, he didn't know if there were any black people in his lineup? Give me a break? The man was obviously an institutionalised racist, and he couldn't remember if there were any "negroes" in the lineup?

The reason he can't remember these things is because he wasn't there...

Of course he could see him from 110 ft. That's how he was able to identify him, and know it was Oswald as he so clearly states in his book.

Its pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he could see him from 110 ft. That's how he was able to identify him, and know it was Oswald as he so clearly states in his book.

Its pretty simple.

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup.

In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm.

Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney.

You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot.

Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one.

You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him...

Lee

Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he could see him from 110 ft. That's how he was able to identify him, and know it was Oswald as he so clearly states in his book.

Its pretty simple.

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup.

In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm.

Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney.

You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot.

Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one.

You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him...

Lee

Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

No. What's so funny?

The fact that you are willing to toss a significant memory for an insignificant one.

Of all witness testimony time accuracy is the least accurate followed by numeric accuracy.

You really should read a study on how the brain operates under stress.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Point 1. Lying.

He was asked to identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a line up. He said he couldn't be sure and didn't pick him out. Later he said he could pick him out but thought he may have been influenced by seeing Oswald's picture on TV prior to the showup. He then claimed he didn't pick him out because he was afraid for him family's life because the communists might come to get him.

FACT: He lied. Doesn't matter why he lied. He lied, so is therefore a xxxx. As Montaigne said "Lying is an accursed vice."

Point 2. Racism.

Mr. BELIN: Is there anything else now up to the time you got down to the Dallas Police Station?

Mr. BRENNAN: Well, nothing except that up until that time, through my entire life, I could never remember what a colored person looked like if he got out of my sight.

What he is outlining above, in 2010 societal terms, is RACISM.

He is a racist, diplays racist thoughts and articulates racist stereotypes. He is therefore a racist.

So you want to stick that in your bong and smoke it eh laughing boy?

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he could see him from 110 ft. That's how he was able to identify him, and know it was Oswald as he so clearly states in his book.

Its pretty simple.

He states clearly in his book he received a telephone call at home "at 7:15pm" on the 22nd November and was told he was to be picked up and driven to City Hall to attend the lineup.

In his testimony he stated, CLEARLY, that he was picked up and driven to the lineup at City Hall at 6.00pm.

Your witness is worthless. Less than worthless. He'd have been laughed out of every court in the Western world and he'd have been torn a new one by any half-decent defense attorney.

You tried to undermine the testimony of Jack Dougherty in a previous thread by claiming he couldn't tell the time and was geographically challenged. Well, you know what? Brennan couldn't count. Brennan couldn't remember the color of his "lineup" attendees skin. AND Brennan COULDN'T tell the time. Oh and a racist to boot.

Your double standards are here on this board for all to see Mike. You are perhaps worse than David Von Pein. At least you know where you stand with the likes of him. You however, are playing mind-games with people on here with your flip-flopping between wanting to have an open mind and displaying a fully closed one.

You can cling and cling to your lying and racist witness and I can keep coming up with more and more to undermine him...

Lee

Lying and Racist Witness? Are you kidding me? HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

No. What's so funny?

The fact that you are willing to toss a significant memory for an insignificant one.

Of all witness testimony time accuracy is the least accurate followed by numeric accuracy.

You really should read a study on how the brain operates under stress.

Mike

Now you're making me laugh. I have a Psychology degree and two postgraduate degrees you're asking me to read a study on "how the brain operates under stress?"

Not only did you, as you regularly do Mike, get the wrong end of the stick concerning what I was refering to about Brennan's racism but you're also guilty of making massive assumptions you're so quick to accuse others of.

I don't discuss ballistics Mike, if you'd like an argument about cognitive processes and behaviours then I'm game...

All those degrees and no idea of what minor and major memories are?

I'd get a refund!

HAHAHAHAHAHH!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

The minute the mind stereotypes an object Mike (inanimate, animate or concept), it is putting it into categories of things similar and things dissimilar. It's fine when you walk into a room and your unconscious mind arranges furniture into these categories very quickly so it can make sense of your environment but become problematic when you let "it" do it to people.

Institutional racism in Howard Brennan's comments exists in the fact that he "thinks" all "black people look the same" when in actual fact they don't. I can tell the difference between Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Jarman in the Dillard photo. And the fact of the matter is Brennan even claims that he outdone himself by recognising these two individuals after they were "out of his sight." So what his "mind" told him was "true" was in fact "false."

Saying that "all people of a certain race" look the same is a very lazy "mind" talking and reduces people from being unique individuals with unique characteristics into stereotypes and groups.

By the way, your witness is still a xxxx...

...and in my opinion he is a racist.

And an "organisation" is the proper "English" way of saying the "English" word "organisation."

Lee,

He is not a xxxx, and certainly there has been no proof of being a racist, and your English spell checker sucks, mine said you spelled it wrong!

If you get a chance check out my article about the scope and the firing pin. There has to be SOMETHING we can agree on. LOL

We get at each other pretty good sometimes, but I do enjoy the challenge of debating you.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course in 1963 his statement would have been taken completely differently. He is not making a racist remark, he is simply saying he has difficulty recognizing colored people. I see nothing of malice, or of a derogatory nature in his words.

Of course that does require a bit of common sense.

As does the very fact that he identifies Oswald in his book, and gives a perfectly logical reason why he did not identify him to begin with. Now I realize you don't accept that simply because it does not fit in your little theory, which borders on Making Brennan a part of the conspiracy! HAHAHAHAHAHAH!

So tell us LEE who else was "In On It"?

Who said he displayed malice? You don't have to be derogatory to display the behaviours of an intitutionalised racist? You are such a goon. By your methodology, slave owners in the 18th and 19th centuries didn't do anything wrong either? You muppet!

I'll tell you what Mike, if you squeeze an orange hard enough you get orange juice. Squeeze a Lone-Nut hard enough and you get BS...

...has DVP been given you tips from the "Lone Nut Field Manual: How to ignore the issue and suggest the other side are loonies"

Where did I say that Brennan was "In On It"?

Now Now Lee, is this the way a highly educated man with multiple degrees operates....oh .....wait....Are you using Fetzer as a roll model? HAHAHAH!

I dont see that Brennan was displaying any type of racism, he is simply saying he is not good at recognizing black folks. How is that racist there LEE?

Please explain to me, how lack of malice has anything to do with the slave keepers of the former centuries. Did Brennan abduct a black man and keep him hostage far from home? Force him to work back breaking labor for nothing, and beat him if he refused?

Are you really comparing Brennan to a Slave Owner?

Now you have to be kidding me?!

What is it with you "critical thinkers"?

Its a good thing your undies are marked yellow in the front and brown in the back, or you would get that on wrong as well!!

How epically hilarious!!!!!!!!

Mike. Institutionalized racism means that the person displaying the behaviour or attitude doesn't believe they are doing anything wrong because the behavious have become "institutionalised."

You know? The way slave owners didn't think they were doing anything wrong for nearly 200 years? Is that simple enough for you or do you want some time to go run it by Dave?

Suggesting that "all black people look the same" is racist, no matter what way you look at it. And in most progressive societies it is something that just isn't said in good company.

Try making the suggestion "that all black people look the same" to a representative of a HR department in a local organisation any time soon.

And thanks for the tip on the "undies" because I had mine on back to front...

Lee,

I about bust when I read the undies comment man what a great reply! Made my day!

Anyhow, I do know what Institutionalized racism is and in fact can spell it correctly most days. However I do not think Brennan was guilty of this. Hell to me most white folks look alike. He was simply saying he has a hard time telling black people apart.

Our HR person at work just happens to be black and oddly enough has told me all us white guys look alike lol.

What is an organisation? Do you mean organization?

Well you never did say you had a degree in writing lol.

Mike

The minute the mind stereotypes an object Mike (inanimate, animate or concept), it is putting it into categories of things similar and things dissimilar. It's fine when you walk into a room and your unconscious mind arranges furniture into these categories very quickly so it can make sense of your environment but become problematic when you let "it" do it to people.

Institutional racism in Howard Brennan's comments exists in the fact that he "thinks" all "black people look the same" when in actual fact they don't. I can tell the difference between Bonnie Ray Williams and Harold Jarman in the Dillard photo. And the fact of the matter is Brennan even claims that he outdone himself by recognising these two individuals after they were "out of his sight." So what his "mind" told him was "true" was in fact "false."

Saying that "all people of a certain race" look the same is a very lazy "mind" talking and reduces people from being unique individuals with unique characteristics into stereotypes and groups.

By the way, your witness is still a xxxx...

...and in my opinion he is a racist.

And an "organisation" is the proper "English" way of saying the "English" word "organisation."

Lee,

He is not a xxxx, and certainly there has been no proof of being a racist, and your English spell checker sucks, mine said you spelled it wrong!

If you get a chance check out my article about the scope and the firing pin. There has to be SOMETHING we can agree on. LOL

We get at each other pretty good sometimes, but I do enjoy the challenge of debating you.

Mike

Mike

He is so. If you asked me to do ABC and I told you I couldn't because of XYZ but later you found out that I could

do ABC and the reason I didn't was because of DEF. Then I would, by definition, be a xxxx.

When people lie, they tell a truth.

I asked you about Oswald's FLASH removal and you threw it back at me. I'd really like to hear your thoughts.

I've started reading your piece and will finish it tonight. I've even started writing something. It's a reply to the very short "piece" by Paul May on your website. I will remain neutral in my criticism of "him" but will certainly be tearing into his "theory" with a wrecking ball.

I never said Brennan was a hood-wearing member of the KKK but he was certainly displaying a racist attitude in what he said, whether he knew it or whether he didn't.

Lee

P.S. Mike, us English don't get on well with the letter Z. We use an 'S' instead...

Lee,

Thanks for giving the stuff a read. I will have to look into the FLASH a bit more, do you have a source for information?

No worries on the z and s thing. I wear out my spell check anihoe lol.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The document discussion the punishment dealt to Marvin Gheesling

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=300123

And a bit of narrative as to who he was and when it happened for context...

http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_3.html

Halloween, 1959, he, you know, threatened to give up military secrets to the Soviet Union, they issued a flash on him in the FBI, put a watch on him, so that anything that came into the FBI, any information or even an inquiry had to be send to Espionage Section, Division 5, and that had been in place since 1959, November 1959.

"Now, the day before the Mexico City story hits the FBI they cancel the flash on Oswald. This is an example of what I'm talking about, dimming the switches.

"And the person who did that we [now] know. Just a few months ago we had some more documents released.

"This is from a large memo where Hoover punished everybody who touched the Mexico City story. It's a wonderful; I don't mean, it's not wonderful to relish in the punishment of other human beings, but Hoover you know, with that big thick pen of his writes in such earthy language, it's just great, 'YES,' that's Hoover, 'YES, SEND THIS GUY TO SIBERIA!'

(LAUGHTER)

"Anyway, this particular one here it happens to be Marvin Gheesling. And I was able to connect this with the one I just showed you, see, I found this. I had it in my files for years and never knew what to do with it. I just knew it was kind of significant, and I always wondered who canceled the flash on Oswald in the FBI?

"Well, guess what? He did!

"There it is. He removed it. On 9/10/63. It's all in here. Here's his demotion, censures and everything, what Hoover did to him when Hoover found out that he did it.

From the audience, "Who?" and "What was the name?"

"Gheesling. And Hoover punished him for having canceled the flash.

[Author's note- I want to insert in here a passage from James Hosty's book Assignment Oswald" from page 166:

"Marvin Gheesling, an FBI supervisor in the Soviet Espionage section at headquarters in Washington was transferred to Detroit, but because he was a war veteran he could not be penalized with a pay reduction without a Civil Service hearing and an appeal. Instead, Hoover busted him to field agent and allowed him to keep his supervisor's rate of pay. Gheesling's crime? He had the unfortunate luck of authorizing the closing of the Oswald case in October 1962."

Someone's got the date wrong. Or perhaps I'm confusing closing the case with canceling the flash. I wish I had the document John describes to compare with Hosty's account, but I don't ]

"Now, the next day the story hits. And this is it. This is the CIA headquarters,... there are two parts to it, this happens to be the response to Mexico City. And within two hours they are going to respond to Mexico City And then they are going to notify all of Washington, and I am going to take you through all of that.

"Here's the response to Mexico City, 'Yeah, Oswald. Okay, well, we know about him. We got some stuff on him up here. Our latest information is May '62.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...