Kenneth Drew Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Just look at that big steaming pile of "damage control" Kenny is shoveling out in his Post #207. Unbelievable. He's even in denial about the undeniable meaning of this remark he aimed at me.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. ("Denial".) Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. ("Denial".) You're batting .000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 Just look at that big steaming pile of "damage control" Kenny is shoveling out in his Post #207. Unbelievable. He's even in denial about the undeniable meaning of this remark he aimed at me.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. (For Denial.) "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Where is the damage control? What did I accuse you of? I asked you a question, which you continue to duck. Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? I'm not saying that he does, I'm asking you if he allows you to speak on his behalf? Simple question. Now I'm convinced Kenny can't read at all. Earth to Drew! --- Check out Post #205. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I figured it was a 6 inch ruler... WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I figured it was a 6 inch ruler... WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either. if the ruler is 6 inch, I'd put it at the 4/1/2 in mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 I figured it was a 6 inch ruler... WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either. if the ruler is 6 inch, I'd put it at the 4/1/2 in mark. If it's a 12 inch ruler, which it's not, it would be about the 10" mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? You just did it again. You just again implied that I might be using Gary Mack's name to make "your [my] statement". And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing. Edited July 1, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Kenny needs to go to math class. But maybe Ken thinks that measurements are taken at an autopsy from the feet upward. LOL. Edited July 1, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 David - please look at a real skeleton on somehting that is not being hunched over... Now find the Scapula (shoulder balde) You can see even from that poor photo that the hole is below the top of the scapula It's kinda hard to have a bullet hole in the jacket and short at one level and the hole in the man at another... The shirt hole was 1/4" lower than the jacket hole due to the jacket riding up since it was not tucked into his pants. You can dance around and misdirect all you'd like... you can't overcome the dishonesty in these images Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. WTF? I wonder who invented that fictional entry location? ~shrug~ But there's no "dishonest" intent in those drawings, IMO. How can I POSSIBLY say such a thing, you ask? Answer: Commission Exhibit 903 (again), which shows precisely where the WC puts the wound on the back side of JFK's body---and it is NOT up in the "neck" (nor does it NEED to be in the "neck" to accommodate the SBT, as CE903 proves for all time). But, since we now DO have the ACTUAL autopsy pictures to look at, we can SEE where the real wounds are located. And those two entry wounds are both on the BACK part of JFK's body (in the back and head), perfectly consistent with the conclusion that TWO shots (and only two) struck JFK from BEHIND. You don't deny my last sentence, do you David (regardless of the where the terrible Rydberg drawings place the wounds)? Edited July 1, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Schmidt Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 David-- That's a good interview with Gary indeed. He comes off as very objective and fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? You just did it again. You just again implied that I might be using Gary Mack's name to make "your [my] statement". And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing. And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing. Are you auditioning for a stand up routine? Did you or did you not say that you don't have the freedom to say what you would like to say? What does that mean? Why don't you have freedom? You do live in the US, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 David - please look at a real skeleton on somehting that is not being hunched over... Now find the Scapula (shoulder balde) You can see even from that poor photo that the hole is below the top of the scapula It's kinda hard to have a bullet hole in the jacket and short at one level and the hole in the man at another... The shirt hole was 1/4" lower than the jacket hole due to the jacket riding up since it was not tucked into his pants. You can dance around and misdirect all you'd like... you can't overcome the dishonesty in these images I think the reason so many drawings were used is because the photos don't show the story they want them to show, so they can draw pictures and diagram their 'story'. for example in that actual photo, the bullet hole is actually 'below' the shoulder blade near the spine. About 5 inches below his collar line. That's where the hole was described until it had to be changed for the Magic Bullet. But since photos such as the one above actually shows it about 5 inches down, they just can't make it fit. No way to get the non existent bullet up to the throat level and no way to get it through the spinal column. Since there was actually no bullet that ever 'came out' of his throat, the whole path through is kinda meaningless. But we can keep discussing 'if' forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 (edited) Did you or did you not say that you don't have the freedom to say what you would like to say? What does that mean? My post that you so foolishly think makes me look bad and makes you look good speaks for itself. It says that I, unlike CTers, do not have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness". THAT'S the "freedom" I do not possess. And yet you use that quote as a signature because you actually are silly enough to think I'm suggesting I don't have the "freedom" to believe what I want to believe. (As if I would ever want to start creating unsupportable conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.) Here's an idea, Ken --- Why don't you switch signatures for a while and use the following quote of yours. I'm sure you think this makes you look GOOD, right? So why not spotlight it?.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" Edited July 2, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenneth Drew Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 Did you or did you not say that you don't have the freedom to say what you would like to say? What does that mean? My post that you so foolishly think makes me look bad and makes you look good speaks for itself. It says that I, unlike CTers, do not have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness". THAT'S the "freedom" I do not possess. And yet you use that quote as a signature because you actually are silly enough to think I'm suggesting I don't have the "freedom" to believe what I want to believe. (As if I would ever want to start creating unsupportable conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.) Here's an idea, Ken --- Why don't you switch signatures for a while and use the following quote of yours. I'm sure you think this makes you look GOOD, right? So why not spotlight it?.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" I'll let you and Gary sort that out. If he's okay with you telling us what he says, that's fine with me. I think i'll keep the same signature for a while. It kinda tells me that some people have freedom in the US and some people don't. You tell us you don't. If you are fine, surrendering your freedom, that's your problem, not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted July 2, 2015 Share Posted July 2, 2015 I'll let you and Gary sort that out. If he's okay with you telling us what he says, that's fine with me. I think i'll keep the same signature for a while. It kinda tells me that some people have freedom in the US and some people don't. You tell us you don't. If you are fine, surrendering your freedom, that's your problem, not mine. 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