Kenneth Drew

It was very clear by 1967, and definite by 1973 True, but we're talking 11/63. And I'm not so sure that Israel wasn't in danger of extinction at that time if the existing policies had continued, such as no defensive weapons/missiles. I think it has always been the intent/desire that Israel survive, but I'm not sure if it's always been the presidents intent. Every thing that was done after the 48-49 war was in trying to make two co-existing countries side by side. Palestine was determined that Israel was not going to survive. They were wrong. I feel as if Palestine had gotten just a little stronger a little sooner with Egypts help, they might have succeeded. In fact, the USA has tilted so far toward Israel that they have made it clear they will veto any attempt to recognize Palestine in the UN. Even though that resolution would pass. Except it would be vetoed by the US. I don't know what JFK's position on Palestine at that time. "Mossadegh" was not a factor under JFK. He only had the option at that time to continue with the Shah or put in the radical islamists. Certainly Iran would have been a much better situation had the Coup not have taken place in 53. I would have preferred that the US stay out of the deal in 53. But maintain the shah, after he was in, was preferable to what came after. Iran was pro West under the Shah, but radical muslim since. I mean what other fair solution is there? Palestine was a country in 1945. It is not a country today. Israel is. Don't you think that Palestine is the reason there is no Palestine today? Once the country/area was partitioned, had Palestine not maintained a state of war attempting to run the Israeli's out, they could still be there. I guess Eisenhower admin gets credit for Lumumba. As for the US overthrowing other governments. I've never been for that particular activity, but then I'm also not for the US sitting by why someone else overthrows a government that might be more friendly to the US.

Yeah, I've been told by other CIA disinfo agents in my neighboring cubicles that it was part of a Castro operation. Are the guys in the neighboring cubicles anyone that we know? Are the guys in the neighboring cubicles anyone that we know? I'm in the larger cubicle near the other end.

OOPs, I answered before I saw the last couple comments. I'm on First.

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder. Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day. And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt. Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO. But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing. It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too.... ROB CAPRIO SAID: So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there. DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID: The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest. It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there". The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd. DVP November 2007 ----------------- Related articles of interest: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, That doesn't work. If you have 99 pieces of evidence that points to someone's guilt, but you have one piece of exculpatory evidence that Proves that he did not do it, then the other 99 are meaningless. For example, you know someone died at 10PM sharp and you have a video that shows the defendent was somewhere else at that time, then all the circumstancial evidence is no good. For example, we know that when the shots were fired at JFK, LHO was on the 2nd floor in the lunchroom. So far, no one has attempted to show that he could successfully shoot at JFK from that lunchroom. Therefore, it wasn't LHO. No other evidence is necessary.

Most of your statements fairly well fit my assessment based on your earlier comments yesterday. I would expect Nasser to not like losing the support of the US. As you well know, Nasser's intent was to take over Israel. He tried numerous times. The idea of compensating Palestinian victims of the 1947-48 war is something that no American president has even talked about in the last 35 years. Why should they? Shouldn't that be a subject for the UN? I don't know what JFK's position was, but I hope he wasn't for setting up a new Palestine next to Israel. They couldn't build a fence high enough and Israel would not exist today (in my opinion) socialist does not mean communist. True, but 'progressive democratic countries' does The US support for the Shah was an utter disaster backed by Ike, Dulles and Nixon. True, but the alternative, which we have today, is much worse and that came under JImmy Carter. I guess there might have been a 'different alternative', a kinder, gentler Shah. (I do believe that if the shah had survived that the country would have substantial freedom today and not be fundamental Islamists.)

As I said earlier, I hadn't thought much about Middle East Policy at that time, even tho I was actually there in 58-59- 60-61. but I based my answers on these comments: The Middle East was a big deal during JFK's administration. JFK resisted Israel's request to be sold Hawk anti-aircraft missiles; pressed David Ben Gurion on the Dimona nuclear plant; Kennedy was, pro Nasser--reversing Dulles and EIsenhower and Nixon--and anti Saudi Arabia, anti the Shah. And he was adamant that Israel get no atomic weapons. He was working on setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries there, based on those comments, I'd say Israel was not happy with JFK and Nasser was happy with JFK. Those comments imply that the US did not want Israel to get nukes or to get defensive anti aircraft missles to defend themselves. And were interested in improving Egypt's offensive capabilities. I guess had both those plans have been implemented, there may not be an Israel today.

Well, Kenneth, I am impressed with the eye-witness testimony of several folks at Dealey Plaza who said they smelled gun-powder on Elm Street. That's not the same as smoke, however. Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered. I admit that some weapons -- perhaps special weapons -- even today might emit a mist. I accept all the testimony of those who said they smelled gun-powder on Elm street. Just to clarify -- Wesley Liebeler told David Lifton in 1968 that he laughed when he heard the railroad men claim to see that puff of smoke, because "modern rifles don't smoke." "We don't use muskets anymore," he quipped. He stopped Lifton in his tracks with that remark. Regards, --Paul Trejo That's not the same as smoke, however. Lee Bowers and the railroad men all agreed they saw "a puff of smoke" between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll when JFK was murdered. You have seen the badgeman photo with the smoke from the rifle. right?

OK, Robert, but let's review the field so far. The first I ever heard of an umbrella dart-gun was on this very thread from Robert Mady. I was very skeptical at first, but the more I looked into the topic, the more I realized it answered multiple questions, like: (1) Why does nobody else react to the first shot except JFK -- as if the shot were "silent"? (2) Insofar as all doctors at Parkland agreed the throat wound was an entry wound, small and round, how could a bullet enter soft tissue like a throat, and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body? Although a silencer could explain the first question, it cannot explain the second question. Only a dart-gun could possibly explain that. Am I still missing something? FINALLY -- do you think that it's possible or impossible to aim an umbrella gun with accuracy sans scope? Regards, --Paul Trejo and not exit the back of the neck, and also not be found inside JFK's body? As we know, there was no overall examination of the wounds to see where they might have exited. Example: no probe was run through the back wound to see where it came out. There were also no body xrays made looking for bullets left inside. There may have been several, no check was made.

Well, now the next logical question. What difference does it make if there were 2 (or more) Oswalds? It's a certainty that Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't the killer of JFK, at most he was a patsy. His brother (I guess no one knows his name, and I haven't paid attention to his birth certificate to see if it says Marguerite had twins) hasn't been linked to the assassination (that I have heard of). Is their a point to the discussion or is it just filler material between other discussions. Is there any implication, at all, that LHO was involved in the assassination other than as a patsy? Did they know something that it was worth burning 'valuable' assets to cover?

Again, Glenn, most CT's presume that the Lone Nut Coverup was planned at the same time as the JFK murder. Your view here also presumes that, IMHO. Yet the original CT was that Oswald was a Communist -- not a Lone Nut. Edwin Walker repeated this. Revilo P. Oliver repeated this. David Morales repeated this. Johnny Martino repeated this. Johnny Roselli repeated this. On and on. The JFK Killers, IMHO, hated the idea of a Lone Nut, because that removed any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba. The purpose of Hoover's Lone Nut theory was to remove any motivation for the USA to invade Cuba, thus frustrating the JFK Killers from obtaining the main prize of their crime. Thus, the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions (and so would not have insisted on hiding or 'losing' JFK's brain'). Finally -- as to your first question -- it seems to me that paralyzing a victim prior to slaughter is a case of mercy; of humane capital punishment -- like offering a cigarette to a man facing a firing squad. IMHO, the Killers of JFK believed in their own minds that they were performing a patriotic duty -- like a firing squad. Regards, --Paul Trejo the Lone Nut theory was not planned when the JFK murder was planned -- but the Lone Nut theory was conceived on the afternoon of 11/22/1963. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with theories of 5 bullets, 7 bullets, 12 bullets -- however many. The Killers of JFK would have been perfectly happy with the results of the autopsy of JFK's brain showing multiple bullets from multiple directions I agree with those statements. I do think LHO was likely set up as a patsy, but not a lone nut.

confident that the bullet wounds WOULD be so placed as to accommodate the plan? They may have thought that or planned that, but it didn't work out for them. The best they could come up with was the SBT which certainly doesn't work. I think there may have been as many as 8 shots, none coming from the snipers nest.

Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while. Having a difficult time with your reading glasses, Ken? I clearly identified who the "someone else" is in Post 110. Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. And then there are those that don't have the freedom to believe what they'd like to believe.

Wouldn't buy a new car from him

- if UM was ten feet from Kennedy when using said dart gun/umbrella, why would he have needed a scope? Yeah that's right, he could have just sprinted over and stabbed him while the motorcade was stopped then they just removed a few frames from the film and no one would ever see the quick 'cat like' dash over. Note to Glenn: Can you see my 'straight' face from there?

Excellent point, Robert. That's the first time I've seen that point in print. It is the best challenge to the flechette theory I've yet seen. It reminds me of the challenge to the eye-witness railroad workers on the Triple Underpass who all agreed that they saw a puff of smoke arise between the trees by the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at the very moment of the JFK head-shot -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Regards, --Paul Trejo -- namely -- that modern rifles do not smoke. Oh! That's right! Well, other than the fact that a rifle built in the 30's would hardly be called 'modern' and the picture showing smoke coming from the fence area where badgeman was. And the smell of smoke in the Plaza.

Ken, the crowd who can see images of "Harvey" in everything from clouds to a grilled cheese sandwich claim the Bronx Zoo happy snap of Lee is actually their boy, Harvey. The photo was taken by Robert while visiting his family in New York for a short time. Marguerite (the fake one according to the H & L crowd) provided her copy to the Warren Commission. Given all of the above, I asked Was Robert "in" on the scam? (no answer to that yet) If it was something more than just a happy family snap, what was the purpose of it? (DJ says "unknowable", SG says it was the fake Marguerite;s job o keep playing the mom) Why did (presumably the fake) Marguerite provide it to the WC, when it might give the game away? (DJ says "unknowable", SG gives essentially the same answer as he does above. If there was anything to this nonsense at all, the fake Marguerite almost blew it because the WC showed the pic to son Pic and he said words to the effect that it didn't look like his brother (totally unsurprising since John hardly ever saw Lee his whole life - even when Lee was in NYC, Pic was away working most of the time). Thanks Greg. I'm not a believer in the 2 Oswald's hypotheis. But an observation. If the FBI/CIA had been developing this 'asset' which was 2 brothers melded into one, or something since they were born, then it would be a total waste of all of that work to sacrifice that whole project for the sake of a 'patsy' for the assassination. Over 20 years work, down the drain. Totally wasted.

Thanks for the response. I based my responses to the information in #10 one that JFK was Pro Nasser. if you are also saying that JFK didn't want him to get certain weapons, especially defensive weapons, then I'm not so sure you could sell that he was interested in Israel surviving. (JFK was a Catholic) I'm not for a Palestinian resolution, unless it's to give them an island in the South Indian ocean and not supply them with ships or airplanes. All Palestine is interested in is destroying Israel.

Can anyone tell me what this thread is about? I've read all the way through, some of it twice and I have no idea what the central theme/thesis is. Just a couple sentences might turn on a light for me.

It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all. This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter. And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case. I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats. you've been on the ropes for a few weeks now DVP. Is this desperation time or what? Been doin' some mighty fine dancing of late... you've been on the ropes for a few weeks now DVP. Is this desperation time or what? Been doin' some mighty fine dancing of late... The old 'rope a dope'.

It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all. This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter. And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case. I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter. Let's see, wholly reasonable? " I wish I had your total freedom " So you post an opinion and 'expect' someone to think it is your freely formed opinion when you've just stated that you don't have the freedom to form your own opinion? Just what or who is dictating your opinion to you? Oh wait, that doesn't matter it's just a TLD, tiny little difference, right? The difference in a freely formed opinion and one that is not a freely formed opinion is just a TLD. That's like the difference in firing a bullet through a dummy with no arms and made of cotton fabric vs through two human bodies that actually contain bones and body parts. What the hell, it's just a TLD. Right DVP? and I can just see this 'eliciting laughter'.

That's about the size of it, yeah. I just felt like sharing after reading DiEugenio's latest Bugliosi-bashing post. (Vince B. had an aversion to computers, you see. So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.) So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.) HIS messages to YOU had to be relayed through SOMEONE else. Do we know who 'someone else' is?

Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary] ------------------------------ Hi Rosemary, If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit. Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to. Thanks. Best wishes always, David Von Pein Feb. 27, 2010 ============================================== Subject: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Rosemary Newton To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Hi Dave, Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." " Regards, Rosemary ============================================== Subject: Re: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton ------------------------------ Thank you, Rosemary and Vince. I will. David V.P. ============================================== More Correspondence With Vince B. Really? 5 year old letters from people who had to ask other people to relay his quotes is what you're posting? have you ever attempted an individual thought - you know, one that didn't originate in someone else's head...? that's a 5 year old letter from a dead person, giving him permission to quote him. A little late maybe.

Amen.

Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary] ------------------------------ Hi Rosemary, If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit. Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to. Thanks. Best wishes always, David Von Pein Feb. 27, 2010 ============================================== Subject: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Rosemary Newton To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Hi Dave, Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." " Regards, Rosemary ============================================== Subject: Re: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton ------------------------------ Thank you, Rosemary and Vince. I will. David V.P. ============================================== More Correspondence With Vince B. So did you quote him saying that?

Fifty years later, do we know which was the 'right thing'? Was Israel getting nukes 'good' or 'bad'. Let's say that they(Israel) still exist. If they had not gotten nukes, would there still be an Israel? Anti- the Shah? I don't see how getting rid of the Shah has benefited Iran. Pro Nasser? Wasn't one of Nasser's goals the eradication of Israel? good or bad? setting up moderate to progressive democratic countries? Isn't 'progressive' code for 'communist'? coup de grace with the Shah getting into the USA? that didn't happen until 1979. All he did was get medical care. Iran was already deeply into the politics they still have. I'm not sure how anything that happened in Iran was related to the JFK assassination. The politics didn't change there for 16 years. Net change in Mid east was probably a plus, but in either case, I don't believe the Middle East political situation was a calculus in the assassination at all.