Steve Roe Consulting

[Tom Gram]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just got a chance to look at Tom's work on the camps.

Very nice job Tom.  👏

Thanks Jim. The camps are an interesting topic. Davis and Bringuier both said that Oswald wanted to join the exile training group, and Bringuier testified specifically that Oswald knew about the camp. How the hell does a commie loner find out about a small, top secret elite training operation for Cuban exiles and know exactly who to talk to about joining?

Bringuier tried to sell a story to the WC that Oswald found out because the alleged Castro spy, Fernando Fernandez, informed his contact in Cuba who subsequently informed Oswald and ordered him to try to infiltrate the camp. Even Wesley Liebeler was suspicious. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tom Gram

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one, with Liebeler as the icing on the cake.

[Joe Bauer]

...

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ball did not buy Brennan either.  The only eyewitness who claimed he saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor.  Brennan denied the ID of LHO both at the line up and to the FBI. (p. 143). But he did positively ID before the WC.

Ball discovered that when he did a reconstruction with Brennan, the man appeared to have a vision problem. 

[...]

I don't even want to talk about Marina.

[...]

Redlich said in February, "Marina Oswald has lied to the secret Service, the FBI and this commission...."  (ibid, 143-44) But Redlich used her anyway. I don't need to add how fiercely LIebeler attacked some of these points in his famous memorandum.

So how do Roe and Litwin justify this huge double standard that Larry Schnapf pointed out?  Its a problem of necessity.  If you admit these people are XXXXX, what does that say about the WR? And you.

If you eliminate them from the matter, you have some problems in presenting the case against Oswald. So it's a matter of expediency and escapability.  That is not the way a legal proceeding should work.

Well, with regard to Marina Oswald's testimony, the Warren Commission was merely utilizing a witness they really had no choice but to utilize. Since Lee Oswald only had ONE wife---namely Marina---what was the WC going to do---just totally ignore the person who was by far the closest to the accused assassin? That would have been a foolish thing for the Commission to do. And so, naturally, we got a lot of testimony, warts and all, from Marina Oswald. Her testimony could not possibly have been avoided. Nor should it have been. Even with some warts included in it.

And regarding Howard Brennan....

I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt.

In my view, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio don't accept the WC testimony of Howard Brennan simply because they just do not want Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin of President Kennedy.

I think it pretty much can be boiled down to that fundamental fact for many CTers.

BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

--------------------

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

"I watched the two-hour version of Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited" documentary on December 19, 2021, and while some of that program's material is probably "new" from the standpoint of its having never been presented in documentary form on the big screen or on television in the past, I myself saw very little (if anything) that could be considered "new" or "revelatory" in nature buried within the program's 118-minute running time.

Of course, I'm saying that from my position as someone who has argued with many JFK conspiracy theorists during the last two decades (including the author of the "JFK Revisited" screenplay, James DiEugenio), with those arguments spanning nearly all of the sub-topics that surface in the Stone/DiEugenio program.

In my opinion, there is certainly nothing in that documentary that could be considered definitive proof that a conspiracy existed to end the life of President Kennedy in 1963. And there was nothing in that broadcast that would warrant the bold declaration that was uttered at one point by the show's director, Oliver Stone, when he said that "conspiracy theories" have now been turned into "conspiracy facts". I would vigorously argue just the opposite, Mr. Stone. Your "conspiracy facts" belong in the same categories that they have belonged in for these last 58 years—the categories reserved for "speculation", "guesswork", "conjecture", and "wishful thinking"." -- David Von Pein;  December 19, 2021

Edited July 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

I'll add one last bit on the camps, cause why the heck not? The story goes that the people in the camp were on to Fernando Fernandez, and tried to entrap him by tipping him off to a fake plot to kill people in a Cuban hotel and escape via submarine. Fernandez saw through it, and realized the the MDC were under-equipped and totally unqualified for such an operation. What's really interesting though is that it was Fernandez's impression of the camp that it was actually a racket, because the "guerrillas" were being exhibited to wealthy Americans allegedly to solicit money for the exile cause:

 

 

Could this explain why the Cubans became upset with Davis? If Oswald knew about the secret camp, as per Bringuier's sworn testimony (and Davis' interview with Garrison), could he have been tipped off by one of these "wealthy Americans" - and subsequently told to approach Bringuier?  

Either way, Litwin's description of the camp is just not credible, and again that's being generous. I really recommend that anyone who's interested in this read this entire file: 

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/T Disk/Training Camps/Item 05.pdf

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, with regard to Marina Oswald's testimony, the Warren Commission was merely utilizing a witness they really had no choice but to utilize. Since Lee Oswald only had ONE wife---namely Marina---what was the WC going to do---just totally ignore the person who was by far the closest to the accused assassin? That would have been a foolish thing for the Commission to do. And so, naturally, we got a lot of testimony, warts and all, from Marina Oswald. Her testimony could not possibly have been avoided. Nor should it have been. Even with some warts included in it.

And regarding Howard Brennan....

I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt.

In my view, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio don't accept the WC testimony of Howard Brennan simply because they just do not want Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin of President Kennedy.

I think it pretty much can be boiled down to that fundamental fact for many CTers.

BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

--------------------

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself.

 

I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt.-DVP

---30---

Well, each to his own.

We cannot know what truly motivated to Brennan to not picking LHO out of police line-up in the aftermath of the shooting. Genuine fear? Genuine uncertainty? Brennan's state reason, fear that he would become target if he testified truthfully, strikes me as far-fetched. 

As a witness, Brennan's actions that day before the police line-up discredited him. A witness that says "Not X" on Day One, and then "X" on Day 100...well, whether LN or CT, the witness has discredited himself.  

My suspicion is that LHO played a role in a false flag, intended-to-fail JFKA plot. Meaning that LHO could have been in the 6th-floor window, and shooting to miss, which might explain the Tague shot. 

But citing Brennan as a witness to my pet CT? That's laughable. I say LHO was invisible when shots rang out. No one credible claims to have seen him when shots were heard. 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

steve occasionally comes up with some good stuff. he seemed to be right about the rifle strap.

However, he applies different evidentiary standards to evidence. he too easily ignores problems with evidence that supports the lone gunman theory but then using exceedingly exacting standards for dismissing evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, his analysis tends to be distorted by bias.   

[James DiEugenio]

That is being kind Larry and I disagree about the strap.

Nice going Ben, about Brennan. 

Tom, I think you blew up Litwin. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company.

Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her.  She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive.

I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer.  

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My suspicion is that LHO played a role in a false flag, intended-to-fail JFKA plot. Meaning that LHO could have been in the 6th-floor window, and shooting to miss, which might explain the Tague shot. 

So, you can easily envision Oswald there in the Sniper's Nest, firing a rifle, but not to HIT Kennedy. Only to miss?

CTers can sometimes get to within a whisker of reality....but then they feel the need to back away from it for some reason.

Amazing.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, with regard to Marina Oswald's testimony, the Warren Commission was merely utilizing a witness they really had no choice but to utilize. Since Lee Oswald only had ONE wife---namely Marina---what was the WC going to do---just totally ignore the person who was by far the closest to the accused assassin? That would have been a foolish thing for the Commission to do. And so, naturally, we got a lot of testimony, warts and all, from Marina Oswald. Her testimony could not possibly have been avoided. Nor should it have been. Even with some warts included in it.

And regarding Howard Brennan....

I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt.

In my view, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio don't accept the WC testimony of Howard Brennan simply because they just do not want Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin of President Kennedy.

I think it pretty much can be boiled down to that fundamental fact for many CTers.

BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

--------------------

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself.

 

Just curious, David. Do you really believe Brennan? Or are you just picking and choosing? The one thing Brennan was consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. Do you believe that?

Because if you take his word on that then it's hard to escape the probability those fibers were planted. And if you accept that then it's hard not accept that some of the other evidence pointing towards Oswald was faked.

My disregard for many of the most popular conspiracy myths is well-known. But I can't hold any of the most prominent LNs in anything more than disregard unless they are willing to accept that some of the evidence may have been faked. 

I mean, I don't get it. We are grown-ups. We know that the Dallas Police and the FBI were capable of faking evidence and giving false testimony when they thought they had their man. So why is it so hard for supposedly rational LNs to acknowledge that some of the evidence could have been faked? 

Because they think of this as a game and that would be letting the CTs score a "point"? 

What are we, children? 

 

[David Von Pein]

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Just curious, David. Do you really believe Brennan?

Yes, I certainly do. And one of the main reasons I believe him (apart from what I said in an earlier post) is because all of the OTHER evidence in the case ALSO points to Oswald as the assassin. So the chances of the man Brennan saw in the sixth-floor window NOT being Oswald are virtually non-existent (IMO).

 

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The one thing Brennan was consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. Do you believe that?

It's quite possible that Oswald was not wearing the brown shirt when he shot Kennedy. He might very well have removed his brown outer shirt during the shooting, and therefore when he was seen by Brennan, Oswald had on only his white T-shirt. (And it's my opinion that Oswald then used his brown shirt to wipe some of his fingerprints off the rifle as he made his way to the northwest stairwell following the shooting. Hence, fibers from that brown shirt manage to get wedged under the butt plate of the rifle. Oswald then quickly put on the brown shirt as he descended the stairs to the second floor, leaving the shirt unbuttoned as he entered the lunchroom. All IMO.)

Yes, Brennan stressed the term "khaki" when he described the color of the assassin's shirt in his WC testimony. But I don't think this somewhat ambiguous testimony regarding shirt color eliminates the idea that Oswald was wearing only his white T-shirt when he shot JFK:

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So, you can easily envision Oswald there in the Sniper's Nest, firing a rifle, but not to HIT Kennedy. Only to miss?

CTers can sometimes get to within a whisker of reality....but then they feel the need to back away from it for some reason.

Amazing.

Not so. I offer it my version as speculation, and you offer your version as fact. 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, I certainly do. And one of the main reasons I believe him (apart from what I said in an earlier post) is because all of the OTHER evidence in the case ALSO points to Oswald as the assassin. So the chances of the man Brennan saw in the sixth-floor window NOT being Oswald are virtually non-existent (IMO).

 

It's quite possible that Oswald was not wearing the brown shirt when he shot Kennedy. He might very well have removed his brown outer shirt during the shooting, and therefore when he was seen by Brennan, Oswald had on only his white T-shirt. (And it's my opinion that Oswald then used his brown shirt to wipe some of his fingerprints off the rifle as he made his way to the northwest stairwell following the shooting. Hence, fibers from that brown shirt manage to get wedged under the butt plate of the rifle. Oswald then quickly put on the brown shirt as he descended the stairs to the second floor, leaving the shirt unbuttoned as he entered the lunchroom. All IMO.)

Yes, Brennan stressed the term "khaki" when he described the color of the assassin's shirt in his WC testimony. But I don't think this somewhat ambiguous testimony regarding shirt color eliminates the idea that Oswald was wearing only his white T-shirt when he shot JFK:

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.

 

In other words first Brennan said he could not ID LHO in police line-up, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. That's a live line-up with LHO a few feet in front of him.

Then later, when Brennen did ID LHO, but the shirt color made no sense. 

And why believe Brennen over Amos Lee Euins, who said he saw a bald "colored" man, or a man of uncertain race, shooting from the TSBD fifth or sixth floor? Euins signed an affidavit that he saw a white man shooting, but also said at the time he could not read.

Euins commentary, except for that affidavit, has been mostly consistent. 

Euins is neither more nor less believable than Brennan. That is the nature of so much witness testimony in the JFKA.

Cherry-picking is allowed....