How Can You Manipulate a Patsy? Easy!

[Ray Mitcham]

How did Brennan know that the shooter was about 5"10 tall and 160/170 lbs, when the shooter was on his knees behind the snipers nest?

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

You REALLY want to be on the record saying Marrion Baker did NOT see Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom on 11/22/63?? Really?? Geesh.

How many times and how many ways can it be said. It's a fact, David. Watch out. One might bite you one day.

Repeat after me -- That's absolute craziness.

Thus the old adage that truth is often stranger than fiction.

The man Baker saw in the TSBD was positively Oswald. There's not even a shred of a doubt about that fact. Roy Truly is the proof. (Is Truly another plotter/xxxx, Greg? That suspects list is getting longer.)

A plotter? No. A low level "connected" guy who would help out on a strict need-to-know basis? yes. A xxxx? Obviously. My suspect list is pretty short, btw...

And it doesn't matter one bit that Baker didn't finger Oswald at City Hall. The fact remains that the man Baker encountered in the lunchroom was, in fact, Lee Oswald, because LHO was identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER by Roy S. Truly.*

* I don't mean that Truly said to Baker: "That man is Lee Oswald." I mean Truly told Baker that the man was an employee of the building, with Truly, of course, later verifying in his official statements that the man WAS Oswald. As early as his 11/23/63 affidavit, Roy Truly IDed the man in the lunchroom as OSWALD when Truly wrote these words in that affidavit -- "Lee Oswald was in there [lunchroom]. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee."

Then he was NOT identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER, was he? Typical sales huckster - say one thing that is extremely misleading and hide the truth in the small-print.

So, is this affidavit a lie too, Greg?:

http://2.bp.blogspot...y-Affidavit.gif

It is 100% pure balderdash.

Unless Truly is yet another conspirator and a xxxx, it was Oswald that Baker saw. Period.

False dichotomies are a favorite technique of yours, aren't they David? As has been explained to you, some people just follow orders and ask no questions.

"[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

"Bud" may well be a nice guy if you get to know him. He was very congenial when I sent a message in error to him once. But like you, he's full of xxxx when it comes to the assassination. This is just the same false dichotomy play you use.

[Sean Murphy]

Sean knows why Brennan failed to positively I.D. Oswald at City Hall on Nov. 22. But Sean wants to pretend not to know about Brennan's perfectly understandable reason for not IDing LHO. Don't you, Sean?

David, are you claiming that when Brennan stated on the record within hours of the assassination that he could not positively identify this man Lee Oswald as the shooter, he was actually telling the truth?

If not, then you're calling him a xxxx.

[David Von Pein]

Sean, you're being silly. Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald.

Now, tell me why that reasonable explanation is not even remotely possible in your CT world?

As for the above inquiry about Brennan being able to determine the approx. height and weight of Oswald:

Brennan saw Oswald in the window PRIOR to the shooting too---

"I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan; WC Testimony

Brennan could have estimated LHO's height and weight at those earlier times.

Plus: The CTers have nowhere to go with that argument anyway -- because the fact remains that Brennan DID estimate the sniper's weight and age and "slender" status (but not his height) on November 22nd. It's right there in his 11/22 affidavit.

Do CTers think the cops FORCED those descriptions into Brennan's mouth and, hence, into his sworn and signed affidavit on 11/22? More fakery? Did the cops EVER stop faking stuff?

Edited April 25, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Sean Murphy]

Sean, you're being silly. Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald.

Now, tell me why that reasonable explanation is not even remotely possible in your CT world?

As for the above inquiry about Brennan being able to determine the approx. height and weight of Oswald:

Brennan saw Oswald in the window PRIOR to the shooting too---

"I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan; WC Testimony

Brennan could have estimated LHO's height and weight at those earlier times.

Plus: The CTers have nowhere to go with that argument anyway -- because the fact remains that Brennan DID estimaste the sniper's weight and age and "slender" status ON NOV. 22 (it's right there in his 11/22 affidavit).

Do CTers think the cops FORCED those descriptions into Brennan's mouth and, hence, into his sworn and signed affidavit on 11/22? More fakery? Did the cops EVER stop faking stuff?

David, you're being defensive.

Your position is that Brennan went on the record with a statement that he knew not to be true.

In other words, he lied.

A lying witness named Howard.

[David Von Pein]

Why are you playing defense lawyer, Sean? We're not in a courtroom. Don't you care about WHY Brennan did a flip-flop? Doesn't his explanation seem the slightest bit reasonable under the circumstances?

If not, please explain why not.

Edited April 25, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

Dave

Was Brennan frightened before they arrested Oswald or after?.

Ian

[David Von Pein]

Was Brennan frightened before they arrested Oswald or after?

I'll stand by my previous statement:

"Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald."

[Sean Murphy]

Why are you playing defense lawyer, Sean? We're not in a courtroom. Don't you care about WHY Brennan did a flip-flop? Doesn't his explanation seem the slightest bit reasonable under the circumstances?

If not, please explain why not.

Did Brennan lie on 11/22 or not, David? Simple question.

[David Von Pein]

Did Brennan lie on 11/22 or not, David? Simple question.

Yes. Of course he did. But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was. Yes, Brennan lied when he refused to I.D. Oswald, even when he COULD have positively identified him. That's the "lie" he told. But, as mentioned, Brennan had what I consider to be a good reason for telling that falsehood.

How can I be confident enough to make the above statement, you might ask?

Mainly because the physical evidence left behind by the person Brennan saw on the sixth floor fully corroborates the theory that it was Oswald (and nobody else) who was firing shots at JFK from the Depository's sixth floor.

Hence, Howard Brennan almost certainly did see Lee H. Oswald in that window--even though Brennan would not positively I.D. him on Nov. 22, due to the fears he had for his own safety at that time, and the safety of his family.

Now, Sean, can you provide for me a more reasonable and more logical explanation than the one I just provided above?

IOW -- Is it truly MORE reasonable for me to believe that Howard Brennan saw somebody else OTHER than Lee Oswald firing at the President--even though ALL of the physical evidence left behind by the real sniper had "OSWALD WAS HERE" practically stamped all over it (shells, prints, paper bag with LHO's prints, fibers in bag matching blanket, and the rifle itself)?

If that latter option is supposedly more rational and reasonable than my explanation, I'd like to know why? (And the standard "Everything Was Planted" response doesn't hold much weight in my house. So maybe you could try another tack.)

Edited April 25, 2013 by David Von Pein

[Ian Kingsbury]

Yes. Of course he did.(Brennan's lie) But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was.

Was it a Wesley Frazier type of lie or more of a Ruthless Paine type of lie?

I know it's not a great big whopper of a lie as told by David Atlee Phillips

Perhaps you could afford us some sort of gauge to help us.

[David Von Pein]

Yes. Of course he did. [brennan's lie] But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was.

Was it a Wesley Frazier type of lie or more of a Ruthless Paine type of lie? I know it's not a great big whopper of a lie as told by David Atlee Phillips. Perhaps you could afford us some sort of gauge to help us.

Read my last post.

Edited April 25, 2013 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Based on this admission alone, Brennan's subsequent identification of Oswald is worthless.

Then I guess that means that this "Baker/Brennan" thing doesn't carry any weight with you at all, eh Martin? Even though we know that Baker IS describing OSWALD here....

BRENNAN -- "White man."

BAKER ---- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."

BAKER ---- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."

BAKER ---- "165 pounds."

[Ian Kingsbury]

Yes. Of course he did. [brennan's lie] But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was.

Was it a Wesley Frazier type of lie or more of a Ruthless Paine type of lie? I know it's not a great big whopper of a lie as told by David Atlee Phillips. Perhaps you could afford us some sort of gauge to help us.

Read my last post.

Just because you wrote it it does not make it true.

If Brennan lied how is that different from your views on Roger Craig

Did he starting his lying career at 12:31 on 11/22/63?.

[David Von Pein]

Just because you wrote it it does not make it true.

But can you argue with my logic in that post? If so, go ahead.

If Brennan lied, how is that different from your views on Roger Craig?

The difference in the lies is considerable, because I, of course, believe that Brennan REALLY DID see Oswald in that window. And the evidence on the sixth floor backs up my belief.

So we really have a kind of REVERSE lie being told by Brennan -- i.e., he lied (at the police line-up) about not being able to do something that he almost certainly COULD have done--I.D. Oswald.

But in Roger Craig's case, he lied about being able to identify something (the rifle) when we know he really COULDN'T identify it at all. And, in fact, Craig himself told us he had no idea what kind of rifle he saw on the sixth floor--in his 1968 newspaper interview:

Edited April 25, 2013 by David Von Pein