Kenneth Drew

(Just make up some half-baked excuse if you can't explain it logically.) Why would you advise someone to take up your habits?

then why (if he wasn't "on the run") would he have walked several blocks east of the TSBD on Nov. 22 just to catch his bus? I'm gonna just throw out a wild suggestion that perhaps the murder of a president caused some problems with traffic in the area and perhaps some bus schedules might have been altered. I know that's not reasonable, but what the hell?

the Weather Underground, which I secretly admired. Did you really? Were these 2 of your favorites? Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, I think the 60's would have been quite different if JFK had survived, but we'll never know. It seems as if that was near enough to the formation of the CIA that they were feeling their oats, especially taking on all these clandestine missions to change the governments in so many countries. They decided that they had enough power to make things come out the way they wanted, even if it meant eliminating a president that might stand in their way. Was that what Eisenhower warned them about when he was leaving office?

Although I'm not sure what JFK would have done in Viet Nam had he lived, I guess no one can be sure, but I think his 'past' actions were a good indicator of his future. I don't think we would have gotten very involved in Viet Nam.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19990#entry268331 beautiful - i meant of the backyard photos, tho - that's where it's hard for me to see the rifle slings (and the front of the trigger guard someone pointed out was different, slightly)... correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the entire proposed purpose of these backyard photos to show LHO's propensity for Communism (even though the two mags in his hands were of polarized schools of Communism...) AND to attach the MC that would later be found on 6 to him...? which means that in order for the Lone Gunman theory to be true, that rifle MUST BE the one found on 6. right? there's no way around that, right? if that rifle in the backyard photo is NOT C2766, then the entire LN theory is a wash. right? Glenn, there is no way the BY photos are genuine. I've seen high resolution copies of those (but I don't keep files on those things) where you can see the fence boards and the limbs and leaves of the plants by his legs, through his legs. In other words someone layed the person onto the background photo without completely blanking out what they were laying it over. It's also clear that the head has been added at the chin level. No one is claiming that the conspirators got it all correct. They obviously botched the assignment on the BY photos, why else would copies of them be in the police station before they were 'found' at Ruth Paines's the next day? As to the 'authenticating' of the photo's, if you have enough money or power you can get anything 'authenticated'. The attempts to get the 'rifle' right has been largely covered by the evidence tampering of the FBI. i do not dispute that the photos are a load of crap - i just like to see things for myself. i will never be guilty (like someone i know in here) of saying something like, "everybody knows such and such because i read it on Jean what's her name's website." i was mainly just asking about the differences between the mounts on the different photos of the rifles, but i'm getting the feeling that my related observations and questions are too amateurish for most of this forum's participants. that my related observations and questions are too amateurish for most of this forum's participants. Maybe, but not to me. I've been around a long time and ask some of the same type questions. The people that I can't figure at all is someone such as DVP. He is apparently obsessed by it and considers himself an 'expert'. How anyone can be that invested after that many years and still seemingly 'does not have a clue', is beyond me. For example, if he's lurking, and he always is, he'll come on here and swear, after reading all that info, that there is no question that Lee Harvey Oswald bought a rifle from Klein's. I don't consider myself an 'expert' and don't want to be, but I know when someone is blowing smoke. Is it likely that Badgeman was real? Sure. Can anyone 'prove' it? not likely. Note: Expert. definition, someone that is more than 5 miles from home with a briefcase.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19990#entry268331 beautiful - i meant of the backyard photos, tho - that's where it's hard for me to see the rifle slings (and the front of the trigger guard someone pointed out was different, slightly)... correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the entire proposed purpose of these backyard photos to show LHO's propensity for Communism (even though the two mags in his hands were of polarized schools of Communism...) AND to attach the MC that would later be found on 6 to him...? which means that in order for the Lone Gunman theory to be true, that rifle MUST BE the one found on 6. right? there's no way around that, right? if that rifle in the backyard photo is NOT C2766, then the entire LN theory is a wash. right? It would be foolish of them not to plant the same rifle on the 6th floor as was used in the back yard photos. No one has accused them of being brilliant. In some photos, the slings do appear to be different. It may only be the perspective. But it's basically a certainty that LHO never saw this rifle.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19990#entry268331 beautiful - i meant of the backyard photos, tho - that's where it's hard for me to see the rifle slings (and the front of the trigger guard someone pointed out was different, slightly)... correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't the entire proposed purpose of these backyard photos to show LHO's propensity for Communism (even though the two mags in his hands were of polarized schools of Communism...) AND to attach the MC that would later be found on 6 to him...? which means that in order for the Lone Gunman theory to be true, that rifle MUST BE the one found on 6. right? there's no way around that, right? if that rifle in the backyard photo is NOT C2766, then the entire LN theory is a wash. right? Glenn, there is no way the BY photos are genuine. I've seen high resolution copies of those (but I don't keep files on those things) where you can see the fence boards and the limbs and leaves of the plants by his legs, through his legs. In other words someone layed the person onto the background photo without completely blanking out what they were laying it over. It's also clear that the head has been added at the chin level. No one is claiming that the conspirators got it all correct. They obviously botched the assignment on the BY photos, why else would copies of them be in the police station before they were 'found' at Ruth Paines's the next day? As to the 'authenticating' of the photo's, if you have enough money or power you can get anything 'authenticated'. The attempts to get the 'rifle' right has been largely covered by the evidence tampering of the FBI.

this doesn't necessarily follow. this works only under the assumption that Oswald was a "good marine" after his service and did in fact habitually clean his rifle, and this is not a safe assumption. just because we know he was trained as a Marine to do something doesn't mean that he did these things. there are enough of "other than honorable" marines who are sloppy and careless to warrant that logic ineffective. for that to work we'd have to know what his habits were regarding the care of guns. we don't know this at all, i don't think. his lifestyle i've read was less than pristine - i'm not sure about his service. was he a clean soldier? he did ask for a hardship release fraudulently. so... i would agree that most people who are trained with weapons have some respect for them. I enjoyed cleaning mine almost as much as firing them. but we don't know his habits, and as Robert said, the cause of the corrosion in question isn't even known. just saying that there are a lot of factors that play to a conclusion like the one you've asserted before it can be verified. perhaps it's, not likely possessed by Oswald because of this and other things. he did ask for a hardship release fraudulently. I don't think that's been proven. Most evidence points to him getting a release for his assignment with ONI. That, of course, was his little trip to the Soviet Union.

One further question: Did he believe that the reason that the truth is yet to be known is due to the efforts of the conspirators continuous promotion of the Lone Nut Theory as the 'truth'?

David, I wonder what this is going to reveal when you get to the end. It seems clear now that the PMO was created and never actually existed except for the WC. Who decided that a rifle 'should' have been ordered in March, and by whom? Do you suppose this will ever reveal the actual path traveled by 2766? Someone had to have some pretty good info to direct the Post Office on exactly when that PMO had to have been bought, but why would they show it to have been bought at one post office and then mailed from several miles away? Are there more details available?

Look Jim, the crux of the matter is that Gary never said to anyone, verbatim, that he was a lone nut. On the other hand, and as illustrated succinctly in the posted Video clip, he did declare verbatim " I have some bits and pieces that to me say there's gotta be more to it than Oswald, but I can't prove it" There's nothing more to say, the recorded facts as usual speak for themselves, ie,. He was open minded to the idea of a conspiracy....end of! " I have some bits and pieces that to me say there's gotta be more to it than Oswald, but I can't prove it" That just about says it for everyone, doesn't it.? Every CTer can make that statement. If anyone had 'proof' it would cease to being a 'theory" On the other hand, I suspect very few LN's cannot truthfully say that there are some 'bit and pieces' that they can't explain if it really was a LN.

Ron, your experience is similar to mine. I was old enough (23) when it happened that I remember seeing quite a bit on tv over that weekend. some I have seen again from various archives and forum sites, but other film I have never seen again. The one I am confronted on most is seeing a person with a rifle recovered (they said) from the TSBD building and shown and identified as a Mauser at the time. I've never seen that in any film since that weekend. Many say it never happened. The very first discrepancy that I recall in the whole chain of events is when the type of rifle changed from a Mauser to a Manlicher-Carcano. I wondered how a rifle that was clearly identified by several persons could change brand names after it got to police headquarters. Since that time, many other things have 'changed' miraculously' to either conceal actual evidence or to modify it to fit the "story".

Just to modify that statement to say what he really meant: "The conspiracy theories are still around because people don't know what to believe," But they do know that they don't believe; the Warren Commission Report.... That should fix it.

esp. after seeing Tippit's tombstone) I didn't see his tombstone. I notice you're still spelling it with an 's on the end of it.

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it. Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working. I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying? You're just being deliberately ridiculous and obtuse, Ken. Because it's not humanly possible to be THAT dense about the "apostrophe S". (Nice job of intentionally mangling Tippit's name again, BTW. And three times too. Nice touch.) (Nice job of intentionally mangling Tippit's name again, BTW. And three times too. Nice touch.) Oh, and you provided proof as to the spelling of his name? A certified copy of his birth certificate, I suppose. Why do you insist it's spelled with two i's?

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it. Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working. I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying? You're just being deliberately ridiculous and obtuse, Ken. Because it's not humanly possible to be THAT dense about the "apostrophe S". about the "apostrophe S".. that would be "apostrophe s". the s didn't need to be capitalized

Oh, yes. It's on my site. I archive almost everything there. But it's certainly not out of context at all. I copied both of our posts (yours then mine) verbatim from this forum thread. And, just like on Page 12 of this EF thread, the two posts appear back-to-back, with no other comments between them. Thereforwe, given what YOU wrote (which I posted in full) and then what *I* posted right underneath your post, how could anybody possibly think I was trying to deceive anyone? Answer -- They couldn't think such a thing. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html Oh, come on, Mark. (Excuse, make that just "Knight". No first names permitted. Sorry.) You think that by posting those two posts BACK-TO-BACK, I could have possibly have had an intention of trying to show how I "converted" you? You cannot possibly be serious. I'm sorry you feel that way. Because you are 100% incorrect about me. I'm not in the habit of "alering the meaning" of quotes or "deceiving" people. And I think you surely realize that my explanation about how our two posts appear back-to-back on the same forum page certainly eliminates any possibility that I was on some evil and dastardly mission to "deceive" all of those millions of EF lurkers out there. It looks to me as if you are just inventing excuses to question my integrity without thinking your accusations through in a logical manner. alering ? spelling alert. DVP has a spelling error here.

That's right, he just attempted to change the subject for distraction. That's akin to what I was pointing out about DVP

When have I ever said anything like that about Brennan? Please provide the citation. You'll never find it. You probably meant to say that I said that Ruby's polygraph was essentially worthless. But, as always, Kenneth gets nothing right. Dead wrong (as always). Brennan didn't suffer his eye injury that affected his eyesight until January of 1964, two months after he saw Oswald murder the President (3 H 147): DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?" HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir." BELIN -- "What has happened?" BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted." BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?" BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours." BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?" BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good." BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?" BRENNAN -- "Yes." When have I ever said anything like that about Brennan? Please provide the citation. You'll never find it. Don't want to find it, because if I don't then I'll know that you will waste your time seaching for where you 'might' have said something like that, just to prove me 'wrong' but, I'll give you a hint, it's earlier on this thread. (that's another piece of red meat, folks) And I notice you're quoting from the WC Report, and we all know how erroneous all their testimony is, at least that which wasn't just flat out lied about.

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it. Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working. I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying?

"Tippit's" that's 'your' spelling, did you put an 's on it or not?

methinks you've been in the wilderness way to long, son! I see DVP's presence here as an 'orchestrated distraction' Rarely does he write about anything worth writing about and he spends an inordinate amount of time quibbling over pennies. Even he has admitted that some evidence is 'useless' such as Brennan's 'sworn statement' but nevertheless, he will bring it up time after time as if it means something. Even then he won't admit to the facts, such as Brennan could barely see beyond the tip of his nose and damn sure couldn't have identified a person on the 6th floor. So since he likes to be a distraction, I figure "what the hell" throw him some red meat. May as well play the same game as he does. He eats the red meat every time.

Yes. Exactly. Huh? You think his name has an S at the end, do you? Well, Duh!! Kenny, The Picker Of Nits strikes again. Oh, and one other difference, the first t is capital, the last one is not... Well, Duh!! Obviously your two cells weren't sparking when you wrote that. So if the name starts with a capital letter one way and a small letter the other way then they are not the same and it would have been a waste of time to remember your saying. so when I'm writing and Tippit's name comes up, You're the one that put the s on the end.

Only because people are too lazy to confirm the correct spelling. A quick way to recall how to spell Tippit's name is to remember this--- His last name is spelled exactly the same BACKWARD as it is FORWARD. Maybe Tippit's gravestone will give you a hint.... Good luck with that task. A quick way to recall how to spell Tippit's name is to remember this--- His last name is spelled exactly the same BACKWARD as it is FORWARD. So when I'm writing and Tippit's name comes up, I'm supposed to remember that there is a saying I'm supposed to remember to know the correct way to spell it? So when you spell it backwards, do you still put the s at the end or does it go at the beginning? Oh, and one other difference, the first t is capital, the last one is not. If you reverse the spelling it would start with a small t, that would be incorrect. Maybe Tippit's gravestone will give you a hint.... not likely unless you show us a certified birth certificate that shows it spelled the same as the tombstone.

Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. But the argument with you is when you have your two brain cells rubbing together.