Kenneth Drew

The Australian SBT test simulated Connally's wrist, for Pete sake. They just didn't do it with a real human arm. They created a block with human bones inside of it.

Not nearly good enough, right? Of course not. As I've said a million times, nothing will satisfy CT hounds. Nothing.

Remember, you don't have the freedom to believe what you'd like to believe. You are sure the test they did was totally meaningless, but you're don't have the freedom to say that.

Pat, please present evidence that KENNEDY had an affair with Judy Campbell Exner.

Phone calls to the White House are hardly evidence of an affair.

I don't care to waste my time to do digging for dirt, but I do expect those that present mythological Kennedy affairs to be fact to be capable of presenting compelling evidence to support their claims.

I don't buy your premise--that only sex addicts have affairs. Where do you get this from?

my point is that I don't believe KENNEDY would have risked his integrity, his marriage and his political career for sex knowing that HOOVER and the mob were known for set-ups and black mail.

Pat, please present evidence that KENNEDY had an affair with Judy Campbell Exner. Now that's funny.

but I do expect those that present mythological Kennedy affairs to be fact to be capable of presenting compelling evidence to support their claims.

What are you looking for? some Polaroids? Even Jackie accepted the truth of the stories of his affairs, having some of her own as revenge. William Holden, Marlon Brando, others.

I don't think you're going to find 'proof' as in flagrante delicto. But few that kept up with the Kennedys would claim they 'didn't happen'.

Tommy,

I do support the two Oswalds theory.

Does it make a difference if you support the two Oswalds theory? If Oswald was only a patsy, would it matter if there were two 'patsys'? Did they have two patsy's set up for each of the possible assassination cities, Tampa, Miami, Chicago, etc. or was it only for the Dallas scenario? Was either of the two Oswalds the patsy for a different city or just Dallas?

Answer this question, and you have the perp.

To answer Thomas Graves, I'll say it was to reverse JFK's Middle East policy.

I'll say reversing JFK's Middle East policy served many interests.

I may be out to lunch.

James Douglass has written it was to reverse JFK's Viet Nam policy.

JFK's death served many interests. Perhaps these interests overlapped.

Again, I assert, determine why JFK was killed, and you have his killer.

Jon, I hate to ask this question because I might seem un-informed. But, what was the Middle East policy that they wanted to reverse?

The photo known as 133-A and which appeared on the cover of Life Magazine shows clear indications of alteration in the stock of the rifle.

Look closely at the part of the stock directly behind the rear end of the bolt, and then compare it to this photo of another M91/38 short rifle:

Can you see the difference?

Yes, there is clearly a difference in the rifle stock. The photo is also one that you can see images in through his leg. look at his left (your right) leg. You can see the line where the concrete on the ground extends across his shin. Below that line, you can see where the patterns in the grass 'continue' onto his pants leg. You can also see the continuation of the grass above his shin where the grass in belows the boards on the fence and the lines continue onto his leg. As I said, I've seen other prints that are even clearer. As everyone knows, the camera can only capture what it sees and if a person is in front of something, the camera will not see what is behind that person. One thing on the rifle, it appears in the photo that the sling is attached about 5 inches from the bolt. On the one in the other photo, it is attached near the end of the stock, probably 12 inches away from the bolt.

Robert, a little more. If you extend a line straight from the barrel to the end of the stock in the photo with the pistol grip, the distance from the line to the stock would be about 3 inches. If you do the same on the cover, the distance would be about 2 inches. also, the top of the end of the stock on the mag cover has a hump and 'changes color' where it crosses the line of his trousers. That's the same triangle that got 'left behind' in 133B. I guess you know that no one is supposed to 'notice' these little discrepancies.

The photo known as 133-A and which appeared on the cover of Life Magazine shows clear indications of alteration in the stock of the rifle.

Look closely at the part of the stock directly behind the rear end of the bolt, and then compare it to this photo of another M91/38 short rifle:

Can you see the difference?

Yes, there is clearly a difference in the rifle stock. The photo is also one that you can see images in through his leg. look at his left (your right) leg. You can see the line where the concrete on the ground extends across his shin. Below that line, you can see where the patterns in the grass 'continue' onto his pants leg. You can also see the continuation of the grass above his shin where the grass in belows the boards on the fence and the lines continue onto his leg. As I said, I've seen other prints that are even clearer. As everyone knows, the camera can only capture what it sees and if a person is in front of something, the camera will not see what is behind that person. One thing on the rifle, it appears in the photo that the sling is attached about 5 inches from the bolt. On the one in the other photo, it is attached near the end of the stock, probably 12 inches away from the bolt.

Thanks for sharing this important article, Jim.

I recent years, there has been a willingness on the part of many supposedly pro-conspiracy researchers to accept these obviously forged photos as legitimate. This epitomizes what I refer to as "neo-con" belief. Oswald's posture alone, the problems with the shadows, and the impossible overkill of posing with both alleged murder weapons and commie literature to boot, should have discredited these fakes a long time ago in the eyes of any credible researcher.

To quote from my book: In 1970, researcher Jim Marrs interviewed Robert and Patricia Hester, who worked at the National Photo Lab in Dallas. They told Marrs that they’d been very busy developing photographs for both the Secret Service and the FBI on the night of the assassination. They particularly recalled seeing color transparencies of the backyard photos, including one in which there was no figure in the picture. A “ghost image” backyard photo was discovered in the 1980s, featuring a surreal white outline of Oswald’s body. This photo, along with ten others that were taken in the backyard without a figure, was found in the files of the Dallas Police Department....

I agree that viewing the photos should be enough to convince most persons that they are not 'real' photos. Kinda like Barack Obama's 'birth certificate'. Both of them have way too many errors to be real. I have seen one photo, can't find it now, but it has/was 'lightened' a little so that the black color of his pants are not so overwhelming in 'covering everything' up and you can see the grass, plant leaves and fence boards 'through' his leg and shoes. That kinda says to me that the 'body' was laid on over the background.

Pat, I cannot of course go along with false pride but I love both the flag and apple pie. Somehow I suspect you knew that already.

I don't think there's a contradiction between loving your country and admitting it has made mistakes. A lot of the history textbooks appease the south on the civil war and the whole country on Vietnam, by insisting they were noble efforts. As Loewen shows in his book, the Civil War was all about slavery--states rights was a smoke screen--and yet most school books in the south gloss right over the S word. Certainly the North is NEVER given credit for fighting a moral fight; Lincoln is often treated as ambivalent and opportunistic, rather than as the anti-slavery crusader he really was. Loewen's follow-up book, Lies Across America, dealt with the local historical societies, particularly in the south, who erect markers and statues to battles and events and tell outright lies. I noticed one of these plaques in Memphis, by the Mississippi. It told the story of how Nathan Bedford Forest, I believe, liberated the city from evil carpet-baggers after the civil war. What it doesn't say is that he lined up all the blacks he could find and slaughtered them in the streets. Martin Luther King was murdered a few miles from this marker. It's long past the time these lies were removed from public places, the Daughters of the Confederacy be damned!

Pat, don't want to argue the point, but I'm from Georgia, presently living in Louisiana and I have quite a different perspective on the civil war than you do. But just assume that as the government and the history books present the story that they want you to believe, rather than what might have been reality. You've heard of the Warren Report? Consider that a guideline. Some of the things you stated above, you can assume to be 'history' not fact. I was not there, and do not know other than what I've read, but if you think Nathan B Forrest was a bad person, you should read up on General Sherman. I don't personally believe some of the stories I've heard about Forrest and if I assume some of them are likely 'lore', then I have to assume some of the stories about Sherman are also likely 'lore'. But I do know from my own lifetime, all the bad guys didn't live in the South.

image deleted

If anyone is interested in the above comparison between FDR and JFK, this is a good book to follow up with:

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9524.html

Thanks, will check it out. Already downloaded.

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

See, this is what i was trying to keep away from, 'cause I knew I'd not be strong enough to leave well enough alone.

So.

what i meant was that it's not the Federal govt's job to put me through college. it never was.

and with all due respect, for every 1 financial genius who blames Reagan for an economic failure, there are 3 who claim he ended it.

and since this is a forum on the assassination of John Kennedy and not on present day politics, that is the last thing i will say along those lines except as it may pertain to Dallas in 1963.

[oh, and Ken: exactly]

Yes, Glenn, we did go astray....

Well Glenn:

If you are for economic globalization, then Reagan and his crew of economists are your cup of tea.

Kennedy was not for globalization. As Donald Gibson so ably instructs us in his fine book on the subject called Battling Wall Street.

Kennedy was a nationalist. Both concerning our economy and those in the developing Third World.

IMO, Kennedy was correct on this. Globalization has been a disaster for everyone except the upper classes. Trickle down turned out to be trickle up.

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/02/29/the-winners-take-everything/

Globalization has been a disaster for everyone except the upper classes. Which, of course, is the very ones that are in control and are still pursuing globalization, that's why we have Barack Obama.

Ken:

I don't agree that Wilson was dedicated to giving the US the same type of government as in Russia.

WIlson, from my study, was a lot more conservative than history textbooks say he was. Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, and he was determined to get us into World War I. A war which our entry into was very dubious.

I don't understand how it was "a coup" to get FDR elected. FDR first got elected in a landslide because Hoover had completely mismanaged the Great Depression. Climaxed by the routing of the Bonus Army, which made the front pages.

Almost any Democrat could have won that year.

As I said, I won't argue the points. just have opinions.

and he was determined to get us into World War I. Kinda like Nixon and LBJ wanted us in the Viet Nam war and FDR wanted us in WWII

FDR first got elected in a landslide because Hoover had completely mismanaged the Great Depression. There was no management or mis-management of the Depression. Hoover had little to do with the Stock Market crash, He had been president only a short time when it occurred, then the depression started and didn't end until FDR got us into WWII. Despite all the efforts of FDR to end the depression, the only way he finally succeeded was by WWII starting and gearing up the factories for that. The greatest infiltration of communists into the country was during FDR's regime. A huge number of government employees-managers were communist party. The stock market crash itself was a creation to make people dependent on the government. Had FDR not died when he did, we may not have had another presidential election.

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

The state of Louisiana, amongst some others, still gives scholarships to deserving students. Free. Anyone with decent grades get a 'TOPS' award which pays as long as they maintain a B average.

in a nutshell, i pretty much agree.

as i've become enamored with the way our country was created, and with the spirit (and the letter) of our US Constitution, i've imagined our 'forefathers' to be a group of well-meaning, idealistic people who valued an idealistic, independent society and then created it. i'm "reading" (through) The Federalist Papers and there's no denying Hamilton's fervor for freedom and social independence from a large government - his honorable ideals.

in studying the Murder for the past 30+ years i've become awakened to the truth that, you're right, they turned against us pretty quickly. It took me a while to accept this, being the idealist that i am. My realist won out, though. Yes, greed and power has been the rule for a long, long time, but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas and that's when this "new, other" government took over and it all went to xxxx. I think there is a definite change that took place then.

before, what we had was tolerable. now it is not. i too fail to see an ability to stop the slide. but neither can i do nothing. Eldridge Cleaver said that if we are not part of the solution then we are part of the problem, and i do believe that, in something like this, it's that simple. to ignore it is to condone it.

the slide can be hindered, and maybe, just maybe, stopped. if there is a round table that spreads as wide as it's suspected to, then no, it'll never be stopped. but i'll die knowing that i stood against the spineless f***s.

the study of "this thing of ours" is a godsend to me - the Assassination has given me an outlet through which i can put into practice this "spreading of the awareness" without getting abjectly frustrated and demoralized. without it, i'm too lazy to remain passionate. with it my passion can breath.

i wax poetic. peace

but i still feel that the final coup occurred in Dallas First, I'm not gonna disagree with that because I've not made a study of 'who' is controlling the government and when it began. But I don't mind offering opinions. One of the earliest attempts to take over the government was when Lincoln was president. But that may have been the 'other side'. But real control attempts started in the early 20th century, Woodrow Wilson was certainly dedicated to the same type government that took over Russia. Unfortunately for him the time was not right and people still had too much freedom. Another 'coup' was the stock market crash. The super rich did not take the hit on that. The people did. Another 'coup' was in getting FDR elected. He certainly led the US into WWII. An important step in industrializing the US and creating massive wealth for those that already had most of it. Then JFK,, apparently he wasn't playing ball. Then Watergate, that may have been the next to last coup. The final coup, to date, was the election of Obama. A total disaster for the US, but huge victories for much of the world.

[redacted. Kenneth, i may have misread your post - i was certainly making fun of his TLD approach, in any case. i WAS referring to your signature.]

Ok, Glenn, it's all in fun.

"But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing?"

What's the big deal between a few millimeters in ballistics, anyway...? We're only talking about a very tiny difference in terms, here -

What's the big deal between a few millimeters in ballistics, anyway...? We're only talking about a very tiny difference in terms, here - tiny little difference: TLD

and you do know Glenn that DVP says a TLD is not worth mention. (see his quote in my signature) like whether LHO was firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom or the 6th floor Sniper's nest is Very Little Difference, and why would it matter? or even if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll, that's 'very little difference' from the 'official story' so why even talk about it. It doesn't 'really matter' does it?

Kenneth...

I had not seen this before either, and probably for good reason. While I will look more deeply into the microphone in some images andnot in others... did you check out his other work?

He claims Gerald Posner is actually Carrot Top... that a Bush brother is Larry Harris JFK author... that JFK is Jimmy Carter based on the veins in his hands!

That Jim Reeves played Oswald in the faked movies.... he's got tons of these "famous actor who looks like the news story person" slides...

Jane Fonda is Nancy Pelosi?

He attempts to use junk science to claim that you can perform biometric measurements on the 2d representation of a 3d image without photogrammetry... which is not possible.

95% BS mixed with 5% truth can sound like truth to many... the microphone anomolie is worth a second look... yet I feel there is probably a realistic explanation for it....

We'll see... yet it sure does seem hard to argue that the mic should be there in the top right image

David, I've gone back and deleted my links to this video.

This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO.

I got it from this forum: http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?

and it is:

The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr.

Kenneth,

You provided my forum's link as the source for this trash. That is unfortunate. The individual who made the YouTube is not even a member of my forum. The individual who posted a link to that YouTube on my forum has since been banned form participation on the forum. Had I viewed the YouTube when it was first posted to my forum, I would have deleted the post.

JFK's Jimmy Carter? Really? Boy Carter sure looks great for a guy turning 100 years old in less than two years!

Joe Kennedy, JR. is really George H. W. Bush? Really?

Did you notice that Jack Ruby was wearing shoes by Gino Magli, too?

Greg, I went back to my original posting and deleted the reference to your forum and the link to the video. Sorry for the inconvenience, it,, at least, seemed reasonable, but once a 'good look' is taken, it has far too many faults.

if you edit the links out above in this post, that should be all of them.

This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO.

I got it from this forum: (deleted by Kenneth Drew)

link to video deleted by Kenneth Drew

and it is:

The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr.

Note: I deleted the link to the video and to the forum where It was originally posted because it seems to be a 'fraudulent' video.

This was a video I had not seen before and seemed to be legit, though far fetched. It now seems as if it is not legit.

Kenneth... go back and look at my composite... look carefully at the shadows of the people compared to the shadow of the mike on the wall...

why aren't the shadows at the people's feet headed toward that wall instead of directly behind them...?

Flash?

There is an overhead light in the center of that 'vestibule'/hallway coming out. the shadow from the mike seems about right for that. need to look at a larger pic where the light is included, then it might fit.

Kenneth...

I had not seen this before either, and probably for good reason. While I will look more deeply into the microphone in some images andnot in others... did you check out his other work?

He claims Gerald Posner is actually Carrot Top... that a Bush brother is Larry Harris JFK author... that JFK is Jimmy Carter based on the veins in his hands!

That Jim Reeves played Oswald in the faked movies.... he's got tons of these "famous actor who looks like the news story person" slides...

Jane Fonda is Nancy Pelosi?

He attempts to use junk science to claim that you can perform biometric measurements on the 2d representation of a 3d image without photogrammetry... which is not possible.

95% BS mixed with 5% truth can sound like truth to many... the microphone anomolie is worth a second look... yet I feel there is probably a realistic explanation for it....

We'll see... yet it sure does seem hard to argue that the mic should be there in the top right image

Thanks for the info. I'll look into it a little more also. What you describe sounds strange.

Ken:

You are really going to like my article.

Although as a general outline, the sbove is correct, as they say, the devil is in the details.

These two new books shed a lot of new light on what Kissinger and Nixon were doing in private.

Nixon actually tried to use the Madman Theory on Hanoi and Russia.

Wait till you see what happened with that. These guys actually considered tactical nukes. And bombing the dikes.

And he essential had his way there until 1972. Congress did not cut him off until 1973, and wait until you see what he did then.

I can only call it Nixonian.

I'm certainly looking forward to it.

Wow Jon, sorry this hit home so personally with you.

But I'm sorry, the record is the record.

1. Dulles, Nixon, and Ike got us into Vietnam. They did this by essentially creating South Vietnam under the aegis of Lansdale. They then picked an Americanized Catholic, Ngo DInh Diem, to be the leader of this country. They then propped him up with an American support system, including anywhere from 750-1,000 advisors. And an open ended commitment.

This was a mistake. That commitment should have never been made.

2. LBJ knew that those VC were on the border of Cambodia and Vietnam. He knew all about the Ho Chi Minh Trail. He dropped something like 31 tons of bombs there and authorized some special forces units. That was it.

Nixon and Kissinger authorized the massive secret bombing of Cambodia. Which went on for 14 months. In which thousands of tons of bombs were now being dropped on a neutral country. It was not stopped until it was exposed in congress. Nixon also authorized an invasion of the country. In support of seeking COSVN, a mythical VC HQ which was never found. This destabilized Cambodia and Sihanouk was overthrown.

Now, there was a war between General Lon Nol and the Khmer Rouge. The latter barely existed under Sihanouk. We all know how this ended up.

3.) I could not disagree more with your comment about JFK not having a chance to understand Vietnam. He was there in 1951. Edmund Gullion of the State Department told him that France could never win the war. That message stuck with him forever. And it impacted his view of colonial struggles. In November of 1961, he objected to sending combat troops into Vietnam using the same arguments he learned from Gullion.

He did understand it was unwinnable by 1963, after the battle of Ap Bac, and was getting out.

without going into a lot of detail, the Viet Nam war was over such a long period, it allowed for a lot of mistakes.

I do agree that Dulles, Nixon and Ike were on track to get heavily into it right after the 1960 election. But their plans had an 8 year pause while the conditions were allowed to go from deplorable to much more deplorable. This is speculation because we can't know what might have happened had Tricky won, but I'm guessing that they were going to make a big effort to get into control of the situation and make a 'real' attempt to win it within a 'short' (4 years or less or not expect to win their election again in 64) time.

But Kennedy won and didn't want any part of it. Had he lived, the US would have been out by the election in 64. But, LBJ took over and had a lot of buddies he wanted to make rich so he settled in for the long haul, hoping to have his friends sufficiently well off enough by 68 and in reasonable control of the situation so that he could wind it down gently over the next 4 years. He didn't count on not winning any battles and getting 40,000 people killed and the wholel thing turning to crap, so badly he had to run away from the presidency because he couldn't stand the heat.

Then Nixon took over, BUT the conditions were not what they were in 1961, the People in the US wanted nothing but OUT. Just throw in the towel. Nixon made a couple of semi-serious attempts to turn the tide, but no one wanted that, they only wanted out. Nixon never increased troops in Viet Nam, he only withdrew them. Congress fought Nixon on everything, especially in not giving him any funds to attempt to do anything. All the US was interested in by then was Surrender.

Basically as soon as he left, they waved the white flag.

This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO.

I got it from this forum: http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?

and it is: