Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kenneth Drew

Members
  • Content Count

    947
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kenneth Drew

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Louisiana

Recent Profile Visitors

1,232 profile views
  1. Some things are written solely for the Humor involved. This has to be one of them
  2. Paul, in the article by Bertrand Russell from 1964, is this quote "One young lady standing just to the left of the presidential car as the shots were fired took photographs of the vehicle just before and during the shooting, and was thus able to get into her picture the entire front of the book depository building. Two F.B.I. agents immediately took the film which she took. Why has the F.B.I. refused to publish what could be the most reliable piece of evidence in the whole case?" (Bertrand Russell, 1964) Since the release of FBI documents this week, supposedly now, all or almost all FBI files have been released. Do you know if the photographs that Russell mentions been included in the release?
  3. Thanks for that response Paul. I have no problems with most of your conclusions and statements. As far as CIA that confessed to being involved, I'm surprised we have even two. Were I a CIA agent that was involved, I don't think I would ever admit it because it would be a severe betrayal of the brotherhood. But I think there is little doubt that GHWB was in Dallas in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination and he certainly was a CIA agent at the time. I'm actually not convinced that LHO was not on the CIA's payroll also. But there seems to be a lot of evidence that there were several there at the time. But, serious question, if the CIA and/or FBI weren't seriously involved, who was so instrumental in the cover up? Who had the Zapruder film modified? Who arranged for the surgery during the transportation of the body to Washington? Who arranged to not have normal SS coverage during the parade? Literally dozens of these simple questions if the CIA and FBI not involved. How did they get Oswald's palmprint on the rifle after he was dead if the FBI didn't do that? These are the type of questions that there are no answers for if this were a General Walker exercise. So, I don't personally expect any answers at all to be released by either the FBI or CIA that would incriminate themselves. I will check out that book, I may have already. About 4 years ago I started actually making a list of all the books I read but, unfortunately I didn't do that prior to then and so many books I've read that I can't recall too much about. Best regards, Kenneth Drew
  4. Paul, no I wouldn't try to be sarcastic with you, but, in general, There are many areas about the assassination that we are in agreement on. I realize you associate the JBS with it and that is not excluded in my list of possibilities. Pardon me if I misstated something you've said or believe, but I hadn't read anything on this site for about a year because it was just spinning wheels. I started reading again lately because of the expected release of documents, even though I don't expect (as I said) to learn anything from the CIA. Reading what you say just above, it seems as if you don't think so either, but because you don't think they were involved, which contradicts greatly with my beliefs that it was almost exclusively run by the CIA. I can think of no other reason for there to be so many CIA agents in Dallas that day with a heavy concentration in and around Dealey Plaza. I certainly expect that the 54 years they've had to purge all records that indicate their involvement has been well used. I've certainly, over the years, heard all the theories and while I'm positive it was murder by the CIA-FBI-LBJ coalition, I have no way to absolutely prove it any more than anyone can disprove it. Everyone that lays out a scenario usually has about 90% of the angles covered, but almost all fail to wrap up that last 5-10%. For example, most indications are there were likely 4 shots heard/recorded, but since there was very likely 6-8 shooters, why didn't the others shoot? Or did they and it just wasn't picked up in the background noise. So when I said we were in agreement, I meant the methods, not necessarily exactly who each and every player was. It sure gave a lot of people an opportunity to jump. I certainly respect your opinion and your work, though as I said, it's been a while since I've caught up.
  5. They did and while on that extended lunch, took time out to rub out JFK.
  6. I agree Paul. The CIA was basically in charge of the whole event. They control the documents. They've had 54 years to arrange the documents to show what they want them to show. I doubt they will ever release a document saying: " JFK----CIA releases documents to prove that they did it.". Even if they let a tidbit out, such as 'well GHWB really was on the ground in Dallas that day, but he doesn't remember what it was all about, claims he never worked for the CIA and, of course, we, the CIA certainly never knew he was on our payroll. None of our dozens of agents that were there on the ground that day remember seeing George". Naw, somehow, I don't think they're ever going to tell the truth.
  7. Question: True or False: everything they release is 100% accurate. They say it, you have to believe it? True or False: And that's why we don't have sanctuary cities or states, because they know the FBI will enforce all federal laws? Joke of the Day? And, if they share it, the FBI is required to believe it. And it is always 100% accurate. So now we know that the FBI got a report that LBJ was a member of KKK so it is required, by law, to be accurate. But, But, But, that can't be. It's in their files, it is required to be accurate.
  8. I'm sure that no one expected the government to release any incriminating evidence. If it is worth withholding for 54 years, then it is worth withholding for many more. I'm quite sure there are many documents that will never see the light of day. Most people that are interested already know who was involved and why they were involved. They know most of the details of how the conspiracy was hatched and carried out. Is there absolute proof? Depends on whether anyone wants there to be proof. I believe that most persons that believe Oswald was the assassin either actually knows little or nothing of the actual details, or believe stories they have read that sound plausible. The CIA and FBI did a good enough job of selling the lone nut story that it has been enough for those that want to believe it to be true. Those that really want to know the truth will never buy the 'lone nut' story.
  9. Which is exactly what most people expect. If the Assassins can keep it secret for 54 years, why would anyone think that somehow, magically, someone will be made to release all the secrets that have been kept for all that time. No file that names a shooter (real shooter) or assassin plotter will ever be released by the CIA or FBI or the US Congress.
  10. Why were these documents kept secret and not released? Because they contain information that will show that the CIA and FBI were very involved in the plot. Do I expect the 'truth' to come out? No, it has been kept secret 54 years and they didn't do that to allow it to come out now. There are too many people still alive that does not want this info public and anything that shows those folks in a bad light just plainly will not be released. Does anyone think that if there were a CIA document that clearly said that George H W Bush was our agent in charge on the ground during the hit, that this info would be released? If that document clearly said that CIA agents Sturgis, Barker, Hunt were hit men on the ground, that it will be released? The presence or absence of Trump in the picture will have no bearing on whether 'the truth' is released or not. They've kept it secret 54 years, they're not opening a candy store this week.
  11. I believe Trump would like to release ALL documents, but I think the CIA (especially) will put a lot of pressure to hide some of those that would show the truth about that agency.
  12. I've watched both Chapters. Made for TV. Nothing believable about any of it. Kinda funny that the same locks are on the doors at the 'listening post' in Mexico City. And the walls of the Metropole hotel still have the 'concealed boxes for surveillance gear'. And he 'believes' that Oswald was the lone assassin. Oh well!
  13. Paul, here is a link to the beginnings of my opinions on book one. I'm enjoying reading it. I'm posting this link because it is about 6 pages as of now, a little lengthy to post here on this blog. If you think I should post it you can comment. https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Cl13iUKLkDin3fZ7ApqenBS1C8p4rAmDx9rm2uVtJw/edit I believe I have the settings correct to give you access. Respectfully, Kenneth Drew
  14. You level of class is showing. I will be ignoring comments from you.
  15. Ok, I can accept that, but with the distinction that even if he were 'radical' right, that still wouldn't put him into the fascist category as that is reserved for the radical left which believes in dictatorship, etc. Exactly the opposite of the thinking of Walker. I'm not sure that criticism of the President is not an American Constitutional right. I certainly spend some part of my time criticizing Obama and accusing him of being a Muslim and doing all he can do to destroy America (Something no one would ever accuse Walker of) and I certainly can't believe anyone could or would ever think of my politics as anything other than 'The American Way". Kenneth, it's my understanding of our US history books that there are Dictators on both the Left and the Right extremes. Hitler was a Right-wing dictator. Mussolini was another Right-wing dictator. Stalin was a Left-wing dictator. I agree with both of those comments One major complexity of World War Two was that England, France and the USA regarded Hitler as more dangerous than Stalin, and so we even included Russia among our Allies in order to defeat Hitler and Mussolini. That seemed to be necessary at the time. I don't think many Americans were ever comfortable with the alliance with the Soviets, but certainly more uncomfortable with Hitler However -- England, France and the USA also despise Left-wing Radicals, and so immediately after the defeat of Hitler, the former Allies, England, France and the USA sharply broke with Russia and started the Cold War. In other words -- we hate Left-wing dictators, but we hate Right-wing dictators even more. So, we held our nose to include Stalin with the Allies against Hitler, but as soon as Hitler was defeated, we broke with Stalin immediately. I'm not so sure that it was a matter of hating Right wing dictators more, I think it was that the largest fire needed to be put out first. I don't think many Americans were excited about having to deal with either of the two large enemies. The difference between Left-wing dictators and Right-wing dictators can be easily defined, IMHO. I'm gonna guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. However, I don't see any real difference in dictators. Neither is preferred. (1) Right-wing Fascism is based on rabid Nationalism that feeds on ancient Racism (which explains why the Germans tried to exterminate the Jews during World War Two). It's a wildfire that can run wild. Very interesting, do you think the Germans wanted to exterminate ALL of the Jews? the Rothschilds, for example? Surely not. So why did they limit the extermination to lower class jews? (2) Left-wing Dictators tend to be Internationalist, and they claim this is superior, and yet their methods are despotic, tyrannical, and they choose to slaughter everybody with success and property and call this Democracy. (It's the Right Wing dictators that our history books call Fascists, because Mussolini boasted of that title. Yet I can see the logic of calling ANY dictator a Fascist. But that's just a matter of semantics at that point.) Both Right-wing and Left-wing dictators are vicious criminals and must be stopped at all costs. But dictators exist on both extremes of the political spectrum -- and this, in modern politics, is called RADICAL. That's the definition I'm working with, and IMHO Dr. Jeffrey Caufield is working with that same definition in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015). This may be part of my disagreement because I don't believe anyone in America in 1963 wanted to remove JFK because he was a dictator. Naturally, cussing the President is a good old-fashioned American custom. It's Free Speech. Yet to accuse the President of Treason isn't just a break with the President -- it is also a break with the Pentagon. Notice that the Pentagon doesn't agree with the charge of Treason. Nor does the Supreme Court. Nor does the Senate. (If they did, there are very specific legal procedures they would follow.) I have not 'yet' accused Obama of treason. He certainly has some persons representing him that I would, John Kerry, for example. I do think Obama is not working in the best interests of this country and his speeding up the flow of unvetted muslims into the country is certainly not in our interests. His unilateral attempt to legitimize illegal aliens with the stroke of a pen is illegal at least and should not be allowed from a legal standpoint. IMHO, President Obama is no Muslim. Leaving Iraq too soon was probably a mistake, but it was an honest mistake -- it was never intended to give power to ISIS. President Obama acts against ISIS every day, and has made many advances against ISIS. Obama has made no advance against ISIS, in fact, he's never said those letters in that combination. Whether Obama is muslim or not is certainly debatable, though he was born and raised through childhood as muslim, leopards rarely change their spots. I certainly have seen no evidence that he is any religion other than muslim, but he may have given that up also. I tend to agree with Donald Trump on this point -- that President GW Bush made more mistakes in the Middle East than any other President, and got us in over our heads in the first place. While I agree mistakes were made, I doubt Bush made more than Obama has. Obama is doing all he can, it seems, to increase the muslim positions in the middle east. This modern political debate is topical when speaking about the JFK assassination, by the way, because it was just this sort of high-stakes, high-tension political scene that inspired the Radical Right Wing to kill JFK, because of two situations they thought were out of control, namely, Communist Cuba and the Civil Rights Movement. I can certainly agree that Cuba may have been part of the excuse used as reasoning against JFK, but I don't see anything happening in the Civil Rights movement that could legitimately be used as an excuse. I think JFK's position on the Viet Nam war was the reason he died. Anyone that would fake something such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident would do something such as kill a president. I don't think Walker was associated with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It is significant that the Radical Right Wing, even today, regards the Civil Rights Movement as COMMUNIST. I can't speak of that. I don't know anyone in the radical right wing. I've never heard anyone accuse anyone in the CRM of being communist. Influenced by communists, yes but not of being a communist. As you well know, the Communists in the country did all they could via using several different movements and causes to aid them in their progressing communism. I will admit this -- that if I really and truly believed that the Civil Rights Movement was Communist, then I would also have to regard JFK as a Traitor because of his June 1963 speech in support of MLK. Also, the fact that JFK prevented the Pentagon from invading Communist Cuba -- that would have added to my conviction. I can see your reasoning, but I don't think any of it applies to reality. I don't believe MLK or JFK were traitors or communists. I think it is/was politics. I realize this sounds odd to the leftist reader, but I can see the honor of Ex-General Edwin Walker for acting on his convictions -- for boldly acting on his sincere Faith that JFK was a Communist Traitor. It wasn't a ploy. It was a genuine, bold military move according to his training. Sadly, Walker's Commander In Chief at that point was Robert Welch (because had Walker quit the Army in a huff, breaking with the Pentagon). I've not seen anyone claim that Walker accused JFK of being a communist. The shooters that Edwin Walker obtained for the job were not mercenaries -- they were also True Believers, and they took no money at all. That's my opinion. Paul, you've said previously that you don't know who the shooters were. have you changed your mind? Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>
×
×
  • Create New...