How Much Do You Think Oswald Weighed On 11/22/63?

[Kenneth Drew]

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?

I'm sure it (the body) was, but like so many other pieces of evidence, the weight had to fit the story.

[Kenneth Drew]

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.

Aw come on, surely you can say if he looks thin vs heavy. That's the difference for his height. Thin? heavy? try real hard, you can do it.

[Kenneth Drew]

The "mysterious Sawyer witness" you keep referring to is, of course, very likely Howard Brennan himself.

From PatSpeer.com (oops...sorry...just kidding...I meant: From DVP's JFK Archives....)

Another theory that CTers seem to like quite a bit is the one that

claims it wasn't really Brennan who gave the first description of the

Depository sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting.

Conspiracists want to believe, evidently, that either the police simply

made up out of thin air the description of the assailant in the TSBD

.... or .... that it was some other (unknown and never identified)

person who gave DPD Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer the description of the

killer....which was a description that almost perfectly matched the one

Brennan gave in his 11/22 affidavit.

I don't deny that there was/is some confusion regarding who exactly it

was who gave the first description of the assassin to the police (which

was the basis for the initial APB broadcast by the DPD at 12:44 PM on

11/22/63). But to believe that it was someone other than Brennan who

gave Inspector Sawyer the description of the killer is to also believe

that two strange things occurred in relation to this "other" witness

(with #2 belonging in a separate "Very Odd And Amazingly Coincidental"

category):

1.) It was a witness who was never identified (and never bothered to

come forward to be identified), even though he is providing some of the

most important info in history.

2.) This unknown witness' physical description of the assassin just

happens to perfectly coincide with the info that Brennan supplied the

police and the Secret Service and (later) the Warren Commission.

Also -- If there WAS, in fact, yet ANOTHER witness who saw the exact

same thing that Brennan saw, this would tend to buttress (even more)

the notion that Oswald, or someone who looked very similar to Oswald,

was firing from just where Brennan said the man was firing from in the

Book Depository Building.

Herbert Sawyer broadcast the following description of the assassin over

the Dallas Police radio just at 12:44 PM, just 14 minutes after

President Kennedy was shot:

"The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5-feet-10,

165, carrying what looks to be a thirty-thirty or some type of

Winchester."

Now, the "30-30/Winchester" remark indicates that the description put

out over the DPD radio by Sawyer probably came from multiple sources,

one of which (given the physical description supplied) was almost

certainly Brennan.

Plus, Sawyer's bulletin also erroneously assumed that the assassin,

after fleeing the Depository, was still "carrying" the weapon he had

just used to cut down the President of the United States. Obviously,

that portion of the bulletin turned out to be incorrect; and common

sense would also dictate that the killer (unless he was entirely

suicidal) probably wouldn't have had a desire to walk out of Dealey

Plaza while holding a rifle for all to see just minutes after the

President had been shot.

Plus -- Brennan's WC testimony indicates that he thinks he talked to

"Mr. Sorrels" right in front of the "Book Store" a mere minutes after

the last shot was fired. But we know this cannot be true -- because it

was established that Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service did not

return to Dealey Plaza until approximately 12:50 PM to 12:55 PM.

Plus, Sawyer's bulletin also erroneously assumed that the assassin,

after fleeing the Depository, was still "carrying" the weapon

And where did you pick up that little gem 'erroneously assumed'?

Brennan's WC testimony indicates that he thinks he talked to

"Mr. Sorrels" right in front of the "Book Store" a mere minutes

Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service did not

return to Dealey Plaza until approximately 12:50 PM to 12:55 PM.

Congrats DVP, now you've established that the 'broadcasted' description did not come from Brennan because he didn't give it to anyone until after 12:50

[Kenneth Drew]

Mark,

Why would you expect Baker to put the name "Oswald" in his affidavit? It was TRULY who knew Oswald, not Baker. And Truly never said "This is Lee Oswald" during the lunchroom incident. He just said he was "an employee". So, what's the problem? I see none---except a nonexistent "problem" created by rabid CTers (as usual).

Baker never lied AT ALL. He was just wrong about the floor number. And, as I mentioned in another post, isn't it OBVIOUS that he was already confused about the floor number in his FIRST-DAY affidavit? He gave TWO choices in that first-day affidavit --- either the third or 4th floor. So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. Nothing more. So why make more out of it than that obvious (IMO) truth?

So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. But I'm sure you're willing to admit that Baker is the ONLY witness to change his story to 'fit the truth', right?

[Thomas Graves]

Mark,

Why would you expect Baker to put the name "Oswald" in his affidavit? It was TRULY who knew Oswald, not Baker. And Truly never said "This is Lee Oswald" during the lunchroom incident. He just said he was "an employee". So, what's the problem? I see none---except a nonexistent "problem" created by rabid CTers (as usual).

Baker never lied AT ALL. He was just wrong about the floor number. And, as I mentioned in another post, isn't it OBVIOUS that he was already confused about the floor number in his FIRST-DAY affidavit? He gave TWO choices in that first-day affidavit --- either the third or 4th floor. So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. Nothing more. So why make more out of it than that obvious (IMO) truth?

So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. But I'm sure you're willing to admit that Baker is the ONLY witness to change his story to 'fit the truth', right?

"So he's not which it was" ?

Well, neither am I most of the time!

LOL

--Tommy

Edited July 16, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Glenn Nall]

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

ask him what time it is, he'll tell you how to build a watch, and how our watchmaking theories are 'stupid.'

but he won't tell you what time it is.

[Mark Knight]

ask him what time it is, he'll tell you how to build a watch, and how our watchmaking theories are 'stupid.'

but he won't tell you what time it is.

Nailed it.