What Is Tim Brennan's Main Problem? (Ans. He's Uneducated On the Kennedy Assassination)

Tim Brennan, for those who may have forgotten, is an irritating,  self-appointed critic of JFK assassination conspiracy "buffs" - who fancies himself qualified to remark on others' works - though he's never written even a pamphlet or comic of his own. In an earlier blog post, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/educating-australian-bloke-on-basic.html

I attempted to educate him regarding his ignorant claim that the WC rifle tests were a success and showed Oswald was the shooter from the Texas School Book Depository. This was after he delivered his inane post in Google groups, including a reference to the WC exhibit and claiming to indicate where the shots hit.  He then let loose with a digital yelp:

 "X marks the spot where SENIOR OIC member Mark Lane lied! Stop the LIES! Oswald INSIDE!! Disband the OIC!!! "

But, his focus was so intent on sliming Mark Lane he evidently omitted the 15- odd other authors, including Edward Jay Epstein ('The Assassination Chronicles', 1966) who also exposed the rifle tests as a sham (pp. 148-150). Epstein, like me, noted the Army specialists were allowed to fire at  stationary targets (unlike Oswald), and also  that the rifle sights were altered for increased accuracy that Oswald never had. In terms of the altered sights, etc. no- the test did not succeed.  Hell, if Tim had the slightest ambition he also could have availed himself of the key volume:  Hearings Before the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, 1964: Vol. II,  to learn the details of the test trials, how set up and why Epstein, me and others concluded they failed to prove Oswald  fired the weapon. He could have even exerted himself to obtain other trials that confirmed the WC test failure, e.g.

Oswald 'had no time to fire all Kennedy bullets' - Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/.../Oswald-had-no-time-to-fire-all-Kennedy-bullets.ht...

In reference to Brennan's 'X marks the spot' baloney I pointedly noted:

"What we behold is a boxlike mold in separate scenes,  with presumed projections of "hits" but no indications of exactly where the hits struck in terms of cranial morphology.  (Rendering the 'X' more like a cartoon joke that seeks to confer credibility where none exists.) It's all of the same deceptive piece as the fake FPCC handbills Newman exposed, the fake autopsy photo (though not a formal exhibit - the WC's top guiding honcho (LBJ)  did authorize its creation at Bethesda), the fake Oswald rifle exhibit, and the CE399 fake.  Close inspection of the images in the exhibit frames shows nothing of any value or anything specific in terms of  relating shot precision to the exact anatomical positions in the absurdly configured  "head". We have a word for such bollocks - it's called a "Macguffin".

Brennan was also smarting after I pulled a "rope a dope" on him to entice him to actually show up and post on my blog. I used the ruse of claiming the autopsy photos were actual exhibits, which they were not, as I noted in the comments section.  I knew I'd elicit a reaction that he'd yelp "You're no expert!" and even had to try to educate him (and others) again, observing:

"In fact, no such exhibits existed because Gerald Ford determined it would be too horrific for any of the Commission members to see them - or to make them public as exhibits. They found their way to RFK who retained them at the Dept. of Justice then they were transferred to the National Archives. They finally did emerge with the HSCA investigation in 1978.

More on the backstory can be found in this youtube interview:

http://www.actionnewsjax.com/videos/news/why-the-warren-commission-never-saw-jfk-autopsy/vCNPy9/

I then - having lured him to the blog - asked him point blank:

"So no, there were no "numbers" for these photos because they didn't exist at the time as exhibits. The question that remains for you is why the false image was used and circulated by WC groupies and not the image showing the rear of JFK's head blown out? "

But rather than be man enough to come back and address the question put to him, he evidently went whimpering like a sniveling wimp to 'Narkive'.  There, he blabbed "Hi all!" then whined that I was a "self proclaimed expert" on the assassination. But one does not invest 35 years in research on the event, then write a comprehensive, 624 page book (which it is evident Tim has never read) to become a "self-proclaimed" expert. No, the book  - the published work - discloses the expertise, including my analysis of the acoustics and the fractional calculus-based  tests I used to show the Oswald rifle photos were fakes, e.g.


http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html

Did Brennan respond to the manifested expertise? No, he chose to render his grievance-filled comments on Narkive, disguised as an attempted lampoon of my wife's quite reasonable (and justifiable) book review. . In other words he confirms he's a weak-minded, clueless dolt, compounded when he claims (despite never having read my book) that I registered the autopsy photos as actual WC exhibits - which  I never did. What I wrote is the same as what I wrote in the earlier link,

"The reference to "used in Warren Commission" then, doesn't  mean as any official exhibit - but as a dummy mold or 'model'  from which the 2D fictional head shot drawing was rendered.  The critical aspect being the phony basis for a rear shot as opposed to a frontal shot.(The fake construction was done before the WC sketch was made part of the WC exhibits)"  ....This false image did conform with the drawing fiction of how the WC believed the head shot ought to have occurred, e.g. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk1/1p255f68.jpg


So clearly, Tim can't even read a blog post properly, far less a full 600+ page work on the assassination.

Stymied by his own futility re: JFK assassination issues, Timmy in his pathetic plea for  Narkive attention resorts to desperation.  He  dredges up a single book review my wife did on a 6 -year old limited edition book, Dialectical Atheism.  He perhaps invoked this to try for some kind of humorous irony or whatever - but falls flat on his  forlorn, Aussie dupe face.

The book itself was only intended for a very limited market of mainly younger atheists or those who'd recently come on board to atheism, who wanted to be able to argue for it in assorted forums, or in letters to editors. Given the expected relevant readership was only 100-150 there would not logically have been an adequate pool with the competency to do a proper review of the book. In addition, the book spanned a history of encounters with theists - including clergy, my own brother Mike ("Pastor Mike") and online religionists spanning 4 decades, for which encounters only my wife was consistently a part of - hence possessed the knowledge of what transpired.  In other words, no other reviewer would have been able to do justice to the content.  And isn't that one wants in a reviewer, as opposed to an ignorant, semi-educated twit or poppet out to do a hit job?

Thus, why not have the most intelligent, competent person one knows  to do a review of a difficult, limited circulation book?  Brennan chafes about the 5 star rating, but I can show him as many 5 star ratings for books on Amazon that are pure crap - including McAdams' recent effort about "logic" and the Kennedy assassination.  Besides, IF Brennan despised the "nepotistic" 5 star review that much he could have written a neutralizing review of his own for "1 star" (if he believed it deserved such).  But that would have necessitated getting off his Aussie ass and writing something more than a crybaby whimper on Narkive -  though I doubt he'd be able to read my book any more than any other on the Kennedy assassination, say Dr. Charles Crenshaw's 'Conspiracy of Silence',e.g.

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

Timmy, alas, has exhausted his bag of tricks and has nowhere else to go but down. He's confirmed he's another sniping, semi-educated puppet who has no business offering comments on works he hasn't read and likely wouldn't understand if he did.  In that vein, perhaps it is best he stick with the  Warren Commission Fables.