(PART 368)


>>> "And he [Howard Brennan] had the advantage of seeing Oswald on TV before any attempts, at that." <<<


Do you think Brennan had seen LHO on TV before telling the cops that
the gunman was a slender white male, 5-foot-10, about 30, weighing
about 165 pounds?

And if Brennan didn't give that description to Sawyer prior to 12:45
PM on 11/22, then it means that yet another (unidentified) person saw
the gunman and described him just exactly as Brennan would later
describe him. And Marrion Baker said Oswald looked about 30 years old.
And even most CTers admit that Baker saw the real LHO on Nov. 22nd.

>>> "I know of very few CTs who promote an Oswald double. Perhaps you can name some who do for me." <<<

Hilarious. A huge percentage of conspiracy theorists have said they think
there was at least ONE instance of an "Oz Double" during the calendar year
of 1963. Virtually all of the CTers that populate any online forum on
the Internet believe in some kind of "Oswald Imposter" theory. And
bigger CT names like Armstrong, Garrison, Stone, and DiEugenio (to
name just a very small number) believe(d) in some kind of "Fake
Oswald" theory as well.

Plus: Those that believe in the "Oswald Double/Imposter" theories
would include every CTer who thinks Lee Oswald didn't travel to Mexico
City in September 1963 (which I'd guess is pretty close to, roughly,
90%-95% of all conspiracy theorists).

I've encountered very few CTers who actually think that LHO went to
Mexico in '63, despite the volumes of evidence to prove that Oswald
did go there.

>>> "Well, this little exchange shows two things ... you paint with a very wide brush, and with quite an attitude; and your standard for positive identification is just like every other LN." <<<

I sure hope so. Because based on the evidence in this case, I know
that Brennan POSITIVELY SAW Lee Oswald shooting at JFK.

Next dance please.....

>>> "Anyone in the world who had been near a TV that afternoon could have picked O out of that lineup." <<<

And you think that people doing the identifying would have been so
easily swayed that they would be willing to positively identify a man
whom they did NOT see at the scene of the various 11/22 murders (both
JFK's and Tippit's)?

Nice of you to paint (at least potentially, via your comments above)
all of the witnesses with such a wide "I THINK I'LL I.D. OSWALD, EVEN

>>> "Funny how LNs poo-poo witnesses from within the TSBD who say that they saw O at other places within the TSBD just minutes before the shooting. They were lying, or mistaken or confused. And they KNEW the man." <<<

Based on that pesky TOTALITY of evidence again, those other witnesses
are almost certainly wrong.

I guess Barb wants to just sweep that LHO-Did-It totality under the
rug forever. Huh, Barbara?

>>> "You said it. He is dragged out because out of all the people who saw a man in the window with a rifle, none were able to ID O. So latch onto Brennan...despite his less than stellar performance." <<<

Who should we latch onto then--a "fake" witness who never saw a thing?

Brennan is it (as far as positive IDing of the gunman goes). Period. I
know that. I don't deny it. But why should he be tossed into the
garbage heap either?

>>> "You don't dance the sidestep very well. Not nearly subtle enough to pull it off." <<<

You seem to have two left feet yourself. Maybe Arthur Murray can help.

>>> "I find it almost impossible to not comment on when I see an LN claim Oswald was positively [IDed] as the shooter in the window. Of course, they never include WHO they are talking about in their initial posit." <<<

When just a small amount of common sense is applied to this situation,
it becomes plainly obvious that the following is true:

Based on the totality of evidence that exists in the JFK case (a
totality that's not going anyplace; it's here forever), the chances
that Howard L. Brennan saw someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald
shooting a gun at John Kennedy on 11/22/63 are so remote they can be
considered practically non-existent (if you're a reasonable person
looking at this "totality", that is).

CTers, naturally, must pull away from and deny the obvious evidence-
based truth and logic that exists in the above paragraph.
Conspiracists have to deny it. Because if they faced that truth and
faced the real evidence in the case, then their beloved patsy is
guilty. And no true-blue lifelong CTer could stand for that.

Care to dance some more, Barb?

>>>> "Have a cookie, you'll feel better." <<<

Make it a Hydrox this time, okay?

David Von Pein
November 6, 2008