Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." His fingerprint card, made while he was still alive on 11/22/63, says he was 69.5 inches tall (5' 9 1/2") and weighed 131 pounds. Edited July 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." His fingerprint card, made while he was still alive on 11/22/63, says he was 69.5 inches tall and weighed 131 pounds. Assuming Oswald was about 5' 10" tall, looking at the photograph I'd have to say he weighed the 131 pounds. What do other members think? --Tommy PS Why is this important? Basically because police officer Marion Baker said the suspect he encountered either on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) was about 30 years old and weighed about 165 pounds. Key witness Howard Brennan said the assassin was about 5' 10" tall and weighed between "160 and 170 pounds." And last but not least, there's the mysterious "witness" who told police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer a few minutes after the assassination that he'd seen a man weighing "about 165 pounds" running away from the rear of the TSBD a few seconds after the assassination. About fifteen minutes after the assassination, Sawyer broadcast the first description of the suspected assassin over the police radio: "About 30 years old, 5'10" tall, 165 lbs." Edited July 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Yup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) As I proved earlier [in another EF thread], it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle.How 'bout that for coincidence? Baker's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Brennan's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif Edited July 13, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) As I proved earlier [in another EF thread], it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 160 - 170 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. [correction made by T. Graves based on Brennan's WC testimony; see details on the other thread] How 'bout that for coincidence? Baker's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Brennan's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif Thanks David. Please see my rebuttal to your argument in that other thread. The tally so far: "Oswald weighed very close to 131 pounds on 11/22/63" -- Tommy, Paul B., ..... (2) "Oswald weighed kinda close to 'an estimated 150 pounds' on 11/22/63" -- DVP, ... (1) Who else would like to cast their vote? Edited July 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 I'm no "trained observer" like a police officer--hell, I'm not even a "trained suspicioner" like Harry Holmes. But I'd call Oswald's size on 11/22/63 to be "around 5'8" - 5'9" tall" [because I'm 6'1", I know he's several [more than two] inches shorter than me. And I'd peg his weight, based upon that build, at about 'a buck and a quarter' [125 lbs.] because I was once down to 175 pounds, and I looked a LOT heavier than Oswald does in the photos. [My current weight is not pertinent to the discussion.] So Tommy...those are my answers to your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) I'm no "trained observer" like a police officer--hell, I'm not even a "trained suspicioner" like Harry Holmes. But I'd call Oswald's size on 11/22/63 to be "around 5'8" - 5'9" tall" [because I'm 6'1", I know he's several [more than two] inches shorter than me. And I'd peg his weight, based upon that build, at about 'a buck and a quarter' [125 lbs.] because I was once down to 175 pounds, and I looked a LOT heavier than Oswald does in the photos. [My current weight is not pertinent to the discussion.] So Tommy...those are my answers to your question. Thanks, Mark. That makes it "131-pound Lightweight" -- Tommy, Paul B., Mark,... (3) -- vs -- "150-pound Super Welterweight" -- DVP,... (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_class_(boxing) Who else would like to cast their vote? Does anyone else out there think that Oswald looks like he could weigh "an estimated 150 pounds?" --Tommy Edited July 13, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 I agree with Mark. I'm 6'0" and the lightest I ever was as an adult was 164 pounds. When I look at pictures of myself back then I definitely have 30+ pounds on Lee Oswald as he appears above. So put me down for Oswald being a lightweight. Thanks, Randy. In high school I was 6' 5" and a whopping 167 pounds, about as skinny as Oswald is in the above photograph. But at least I could dunk the basketball (if nobody was guarding me). The Tally So Far: "Lightweight" (131 lbs) -- Tommy, Paul B., Mark, Randy, ... (4) "Super Welterweight" (150 lbs) -- DVP, ... (1) Who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." His fingerprint card, made while he was still alive on 11/22/63, says he was 69.5 inches tall (5' 9 1/2") and weighed 131 pounds. His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." I thought that, during an autopsy, the body would have actually been weighed in order to ensure that all information gleaned was accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." His fingerprint card, made while he was still alive on 11/22/63, says he was 69.5 inches tall (5' 9 1/2") and weighed 131 pounds. His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." I thought that, during an autopsy, the body would have actually been weighed in order to ensure that all information gleaned was accurate? Good point, Ian. Wanna see with your own eyes that autopsy report that says "estimated 150 pounds?" BTW, how much do you think he weighs in the photograph? 131 pounds or 150 pounds? Or do you want to stay noncommittal on it? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Tommy, Not particularly, I'm sure you wouldn't have made that up!!! Well, being a UK resident and still dealing in 'old money', I look for stones and pounds; 131lbs converts to 9st 5lbs - that's pretty light...131lbs in boxing terms is around super-featherweight depending upon which sanctioning body you refer to (IBF, WBO etc.) which is quite a small guy. 150lbs converts to around 10st 10lbs. So, all in all, I can't be sure if I'd really notice the difference. Would be nice to have photos of 2 guys of around the same height and these 2 weights as a comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 Tommy, Not particularly, I'm sure you wouldn't have made that up!!! Well, being a UK resident and still dealing in 'old money', I look for stones and pounds; 131lbs converts to 9st 5lbs - that's pretty light...131lbs in boxing terms is around super-featherweight depending upon which sanctioning body you refer to (IBF, WBO etc.) which is quite a small guy. 150lbs converts to around 10st 10lbs. So, all in all, I can't be sure if I'd really notice the difference. Would be nice to have photos of 2 guys of around the same height and these 2 weights as a comparison. Fair enough, Ian Old Boy. Let me put it to you this way. If Baker really confronted Oswald that day, how likely do you think he would have described him as being "around 165 pounds?" --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 165lbs = 11st 11lbs. For a ~5'9" guy, that still may not be particularly large though. Again, some comparison photos would be good... Difficult for me as I'm quite short and overweight!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted July 13, 2015 Author Share Posted July 13, 2015 165lbs = 11st 11lbs. For a ~5'9" guy, that still may not be particularly large though. Again, some comparison photos would be good... Difficult for me as I'm quite short and overweight!!! Ian, I didn't say that 5' 9 1/2" and 165 pounds was "particularly large" for a man. I said it's noticeably larger than 5' 9 1/2" and 131 lbs. But perhaps you disagree. So, should I put you down as voting that Oswald, as he looks in the photo, was closer to 131 lbs that day, or closer to 150 lbs? Or is it just too difficult for you to say one way or the other? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Lloyd Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 Tommy, I wasn't picking you up on what you said, it was just my comment. To be honest, I don't think I could tell one way or the other. 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