Glenn Nall Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 a better look at the angles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 as i looked more closely, it looks to me like UM is in front still, just obscured by a motorcycle antenna, angle, etc... Looking at it again, I think you're right. The antenna threw me off, as I mistook it for a sign post. I'm still curious about what looks like a dark patch on the umbrella. I've never seen a patched-up umbrella. You don't patch up an umbrella, you throw it away and buy a new one. I assume that umbrella guns were custom-made, not adapted from regular umbrellas, and would not have telltale patches on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 20, 2015 Author Share Posted June 20, 2015 (edited) in fact, that was his tack, too - that dark patch. i'm not sold on the frechette idea anyway, and how that patch would relate, if it is a patch - it does look darker, tho. but to ME that could be sunlight (loss of) or anything with that kind of photography. this guy stated that he could see signs of image manipulation (smudgery) in that area. I'm still a little curious about the suddenly very hard to see NORTH 77 sign, almost non-existent... but only a little concerned. i occasionally see some really HIGH quality Zap film and wish I could get my hands on those frames, or better yet, the software that can clean up stuff like that. I know it's beyond Photoshop... So there must be better images of Betzner and Willis than what I'm looking at. you seem familiar with the flechette UM theory - are you aware of this website I got this tale from? I cannot remember where i got them. i saw an interview with F Sturgis last night in which he made what i think is a good point. The CIA might not go as far as direct murder in the USA because of patriotism and their badge - "if they'd do that, then what next" -- explaining that they weren't above murdering JFK, just pulling the trigger themselves. which is why they'd involve italians or cubans. I'd go with that. some false sense of sanctimony - i dunno. but the use of a flechette firing mechanism, as described by the CIA guys. almost definitively places real Operatives on the triggers. Did they cross THAT line? Is there a reason to think they wouldn't? Edited June 22, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Glenn, the camera position in the black and white photo is much to the right of the camera position of the colour photo.(Note the different views of the walls behind the sign.) This would account for the apparent difference in positions of the spectators. IMO. not so much as to cause that. i'll post the positions of Betzner and Willis... ah - you may be right >> There's JFK's limo on Elm, and Brennan is facing toward the limo, not looking up at the 6th floor. Is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right. seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right. seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress. Glenn, this is a photo taken from the spot Brennan was. Could you describe anybody the way he did from this angle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) right, that's what I'm thinking, too - even if he DID look up at someone in the window, he may or may not have a clear image/memory of his face, considering the circumstances. it's hard to say, isn't it. to be honest, yeah, i might have a pretty good look at someone from this distance. but i dunno for sure but didn't he fail to point out LHO later, in a line up or photo? i would say that if Brennan didn't do so well in a definite ID, then that tells the whole story. a lawyer would negate that pretty quickly, especially with others in the area that resembled him, like Lovelady, etc. Edited June 21, 2015 by Glenn Nall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 right, that's what I'm thinking, too - even if he DID look up at someone in the window, he may or may not have a clear image/memory of his face, considering the circumstances. it's hard to say, isn't it. to be honest, yeah, i might have a pretty good look at someone from this distance. but i dunno for sure but didn't he fail to point out LHO later, in a line up or photo? i would say that if Brennan didn't do so well in a definite ID, then that tells the whole story. a lawyer would negate that pretty quickly, especially with others in the area that resembled him, like Lovelady, etc. The Warren Report said that Brennan's description of Oswald was their basis for the bulletin that was broadcast. What they didn't admit is that the bulletin was broadcast 'before' Brennan gave them a description. Brennan failed to ID Oswald in the police lineup. Yet he had only seen him 'standing' in the window, even tho a sniper there would have had to be sitting or lying on the floor. Well, at least there are not many consistencies in his story. He clearly wasn't anxiously pointing anyone out in this photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right. seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress. Glenn, this is a photo taken from the spot Brennan was. Could you describe anybody the way he did from this angle? Sure I could, Ray. I could even tell you how tall he was! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) right, but i read someone saying that he is seen to look right suddenly on the "first" shot - not right and UP, just right. seems to me that with the proven unreliability of eye-witness testimony over the years, that even if he did get a good look at someone on 6, it'd be too vague to know for certain later, similar description or not. too many eye-witnesses have SWORN that soandso was the culprit, only to be proven mistaken later. or eyes and MINDS do funny things under duress. Glenn, this is a photo taken from the spot Brennan was. Could you describe anybody the way he did from this angle? Sure I could, Ray. I could even tell you how tall he was! Well, it would certainly help if he were sticking his head out the window. It was reported that Brennan couldn't even identify the race of the men in the police lineup. He must have terrific vision, not being able to recognize that at, what 10 feet, maybe? As a footnote: I notice that the secret service now has all the windows closed. Wonder why they didn't do that on the day of the visit? Maybe a plan? or something? Edited June 21, 2015 by Kenneth Drew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) It was reported that Brennan couldn't even identify the race of the men in the police lineup. He must have terrific vision, not being able to recognize that at, what 10 feet, maybe? I recall reading somewhere that Brennan or someone describing him said that he could read a license plate from 100 feet away (or was it yards?). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?) Maybe someone can tell us where I read this, since I no longer have any idea. Edited June 21, 2015 by Ron Ecker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 It was reported that Brennan couldn't even identify the race of the men in the police lineup. He must have terrific vision, not being able to recognize that at, what 10 feet, maybe? I recall reading somewhere that Brennan or someone describing him said that he could read a license plate from 100 feet away (or was it yards?). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?) Maybe someone can tell us where I read this, since I no longer have any idea. that sounds like something some guy named Dave would say. Super Brennan, unimpeachable at 100 yards. i'm still thinking that is he saw LHO standing up, then his best description of him would have been of his crotch. no...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 It was reported that Brennan couldn't even identify the race of the men in the police lineup. He must have terrific vision, not being able to recognize that at, what 10 feet, maybe? I recall reading somewhere that Brennan or someone describing him said that he could read a license plate from 100 feet away (or was it yards?). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?) Maybe someone can tell us where I read this, since I no longer have any idea. that sounds like something some guy named Dave would say. Super Brennan, unimpeachable at 100 yards. i'm still thinking that is he saw LHO standing up, then his best description of him would have been of his crotch. no...? would have been of his crotch. no...? Yes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 i'm still thinking that is he saw LHO standing up, then his best description of him would have been of his crotch. no...? That would have made an interesting All Points Bulletin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 (edited) ). He had super vision. (Or should I say supervision?) Absolutely nailed it, Ron. Brilliant comment. Edited June 21, 2015 by Ray Mitcham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now