Kenneth Drew

Hi Jim I've never seen this exchange between Mark Lane and Baker before. When did it take place? You've obviously scared DVP quite badly by posting it. When he completely ignores something, you know it is Kryptonite to him. How about it, Davey? Kind of an odd statement Baker makes right at the end there, eh what? Jim made it up. I suspect he was trying to be funny. I see. I wish people would give a little warning to tell us when something is not genuine. I see. I wish people would give a little warning to tell us when something is not genuine. Ok, here's a warning. If DVP says it, it's likely made up.

Irony alert! Kenny is punishing the DMN for inaccurate reporting in a post in which he mangles Tippit's name. Ken must take lessons in being a punching bag. Kenny is punishing the DMN for inaccurate reporting in a post in which he mangles Tippit's name. I've seen it spelled several ways over the years, when you post a certified copy of his birth certificate with the correct spelling, I'll go with that. You don't want me to start pointing out every time you have a 'misspelled' word, do you?

Huh? Are you really this thick, Ken? Really? Try DiEugenio for starters.... "Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015 And, as I said, it's obvious Prudhomme thinks there was no Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter at all (as I proved in my previous post about this, which you obviously totally ignored). And it's fairly clear that Mark Knight doesn't believe in the Baker/Oswald meeting either. If he did, he wouldn't be fighting so hard to win an argument in this thread. He would be keeping silent. But he's not. And Tommy Graves is also a member of the "No Baker/LHO Encounter At All" club, as we can see HERE. Pat Speer, however, is a reasonable CTer (and getting more reasonable by the day, based on several of his very good posts here at EF recently). He believes that Baker encountered Oswald, just as all other rational people do. So, you're still batting a perfect .000, Ken. Somebody should have benched you for the whole season while you were still down in Florida for spring training. while you were still down in Florida for spring training. So you have evidence I was in Florida for spring training? I'd say it's about as good as most of your 'evidence'.

Wrong, as usual, Ken. I only searched the newspaper archive to combat Prudhomme's previous post when he said this.... "If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- B. Prudhomme And the Curry video doesn't say a thing about the encounter being a "second-floor encounter" either. And the Curry video (via Bob P.'s post referring to that Curry video) was my entire motivation for seeking out a newspaper article to shove down his throat which proved that the same type of ENCOUNTER that was referred to in the Curry video (regardless of floor number) was also being reported on a day which Prudhomme said he would find more satisfactory so that he could stop pretending that ANY "encounter" took place INVOLVING OSWALD and a Dallas policeman (which I didf find in less than four minutes via the DMN article, which HAD to have been put to bed on Nov. 22, not Nov. 23). (Can anybody say --- Holy Confusion!) Anyway, I knew exactly what I meant and what I was doing when I put "second-floor encvounter" in quote marks. You actually think I would be stupid enough to think you CTers wouldn't catch me in a lie if I truly was trying to suggest that those exact words ("second-floor encounter") WERE part of the DMN article---even when I posted the article itself for all to see and check? That's hilarious. Give me credit for SOME gray matter, okay? Where you put your hand in the cookie jar is when you thought you could use that story for two purposes, instead of just one. You thought that since it showed there had been an encounter, that the story could be used to bolster your claim that their was an encounter. But then you double dipped when you equated that with a 'second floor encounter'. As to your 'innocence' me thinks you protest too much.

Or don't you think 12:30 is close to "about 12:20"? When the whole world was watching and knows it was 12:30? no it's not close. That's kinda like Tippet was killed at 1:05, or was it 1:15? Does it matter? I see you didn't make the same point about the Mauser. I mean, it's the same thing, isn't it? Do details matter?

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will. I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO ptrevious recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same one I used them for in the DMN post). . I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Huh?

Isn't it obvious he thinks there was no such encounter when he said all this? Absolutely not. Not even a suggestion.

But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL are you just making it up as you go along? Name one CTer that has stated that they don't believe ANY encounter occurred between Truly Baker and Oswald. I don't believe you can come up with a name.

was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. that's not true at all, because you said that we now had to add the DMN staff to the list of liars about there being a 'second floor encounter' If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point. As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.

DVP I hope you're not using that paper for it's 'accuracy'. It says Kennedy was shot with a Mauser at 12:20 and died at 1:00Pm and that LHO was apprehended an hour later at a Theatre. Which of those statements are true. Mauser? 12:20? 1:00PM? an hour later? Maybe the reporters should have gotten an earlier start and they might have gotten at least one of those correct. Oh, and it says the call that it was LHO went out after he didn't show up for a 'roll call of employees' meeting. Are we supposed to believe that meeting was held prior to the 12:45 call that it was him?

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News Ah, but it's you DVP that is playing kangaroo and jumping to conclusions. Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.

DVP you sure are confused. At no time has Bob said he didn't believe there was a 2nd floor encounter. His problem is that Baker said it was the 3rd or 4th floor while the world thinks/thought it was on the 2nd floor but the Baker allowed them to 'change' Baker's testimony (statement) to the 2nd floor. and my question was: How many other 'pieces of evidence' got changed to fit with the preconception/preplanned scenario. It's like Weitzman being absolutely sure it was a Mauser, but then agreed that 'he was mistaken' just because the rifle was changed out to a MC. (There were actually about 5 witnesses that swore that it was a Mauser that later 'changed' their story.

Yeah, sure, Ken. All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald.... ...The C2766 rifle. there is not even any evidence that rifle was fired on 11/22 ...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle. And of course, you know there is not any such documents ...All of the bullets. Not one single bullet has been proven to have been fired from 2766 on 11/22. Absolutely none. ...All of the bullet shells. Did not keep the recoverers initials on them and there is no chain of custody and there is no proof they were fired on 11/22 ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). Of which there is Eggzackly none. ...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses). There is no Tippit murder evidence that even slightly implicates Oswald, other than that?????? ...Howard Brennan's WC testimony. Now you're back to having to use Brennan? Even tho his description has been proven 100% in error. ...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22. Drinking the coke in the lunch room? Coming to work that day? Being named Lee Harvey Oswald? Being a CIA agent? which one of those wraps it up? Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES). Most of the 'evidence' wouldn't get in the court room, certainly not presented to a jury. (Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.) You sure like to beat a dead horse. Putting out a list of 'evidence' that would never get to the jury is not very impressive.

Great!

Which, if you ask me, is a very worthwhile task. There are far too many silly, factually baseless theories out there that need to be discarded if this case is ever going to move forward. The trouble is, as I know from experience, certain types of conspiracy theorists refuse to give up on the garbage regardless of how thoroughly it's been debunked. All they do is tell you that whatever evidence you have produced undermining their beliefs is "fake" or "altered". And then they call you a "lone nutter" or a "shill" for disagreeing. I've been there many times and, I'm sure, will be many times more. of how thoroughly it's been debunked. I wonder when we're going to start seeing some of this "debunking". But please don't do any of it on this thread.

While there is a small amount of circumstantial evidence due to the set up, the statement that the evidence against Oswald is 'overwhelming' is, of itself, overwhelmingly an overstatement. If you are so absolutely sure, why not take Krusch's challenge and make some money off it? "And guilt is usually established by using evidence " only if the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and I know of no evidence, and you certainly haven't shown us any, that proves any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote. By the time all exculpatory evidence is presented, along with yours, the net is 'not guilty'.

The world knew it by 11:26 PM CST on 11/22. It was obvious then. It's even more obvious today. Too bad you haven't joined the world yet. So, do you agree with the statement from above: "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 According to your statement that the world knew at 11:26 PM, where was Mr Dreier of ABC News that he 'knew' it and made his statement prior to midnight?

incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, give us a link to some CTer pretending that.

Jon, I guess you're right. Although Brennan said he could only see the shooter from the hips or belt line up, in reality, he could have seen a standing shooter only from the hips or belt line down. BTW, Brennan also said he thought the shooter was sitting on the windowsill at one point before the limo came by, but was standing "like the black guys at the fifth-floor window" while shooting at JFK. Now if the shooter really was standing "like the black guys" when he fired the rifle, it beats me as to why Brennan would throw in the "sitting on the windowsill," too, but it is valuable information because it tells us that Brennan couldn't possibly have confused the two positions, could he? It's an interesting (because it reflects on Brennan's credibility) but rather moot point because the window, even if lifted as high as it would go, couldn't have been opened high enough to allow anyone to shoot through it from a standing position. So why did Brennan say that the assassin was standing while firing? His testimony would have been more convincing if he'd said he saw the shooter firing from a sitting position. Maybe he didn't say that because he had to get in the "possibly 5' 10", 160 to 170 pounds" bit in, and in order to do so had to say he saw the shooter standing at the window. Most importantly, I disagree, for very ironic reasons, with your assessment that Brennan's testimony here has "zero value." Brennan's testimony, given what you've pointed out, above, suggests that he was told what to say, and what he said suggests the transmission of FBI/CIA/Army Intell regarding the biological details of Robert E. Webster as "inherited" by Lee Harvey Oswald in a "dangle" / "mole hunting" operation begun by the the FBI and CIA in 1960 when Oswald was still in Russia. Powell photo on the left; Dillard photo on the right: --Tommy See those 2 bottom photos? If the window where the two guys are looking out were at the same raised point as the window above it, what would the two men be seeing? Their faces would be behind the glass. Their window half is raised fully while the one on the 6th floor was only half raised.

Several really good comments, Glenn. and as far as the thread goes, it's my opinion that DVP simply does so on purpose. i think his own personal JFK ass. philosophy is mostly secondary to his intent to keep others from theirs. it reminds me of some toddlers i've known. I do agree that DVP's intent is to keep anyone else from proving any part of a conspiracy. He knows the Lone Nut story is not true, but he doesn't have to 'prove' that it is because the Warren commission already did that. Even tho very few people that have actually looked into the killing agree with the WC conclusions. But he doesn't have to prove the WC right, because it's in the book as the governments position, even though the government changed their official position with the HSCA but they didn't go back and change the WCR. On a 1 - 100 scale, i give the empty casings on the 6th about a 15, whereas DVP seems to give them about a 90. 95... 98... That's true. DVP can claim they are evidence of something just because they are there and the WCR makes conclusions about them. Yet, the fact they are found there has nothing to do with a shot being fired from there. Even if those casings are the ones that were actually found there on 11/22, it has nothing to do with when they were fired or says nothing about who they were fired by. And there certainly is no evidence that links those shell casings to any of the bullets that were actually in JFK's body. DVP only regurgitates the same old song and dance, he apparently closed his mind long ago to even considering whether some parts of the story don't match and looks at no other possibilities. A simple example, absolutely no proof has ever surfaced that proves LHO ever owned a MC rifle or ever fired one. DVP is convinced, with absolutely no evidence that he did. truly ironic.

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that! Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly. Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery. Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon? For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan? Thank you so much, Jon. In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963. There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come. ------------- "Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961 "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 Wonder how he knew who had killed JFK on 11/22 when the world didn't know it until the Warren Report reached a conclusion.

Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that! Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly. Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery. Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon? For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan? Thank you so much, Jon. In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, IS simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963. There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come. ------------- "Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961 "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963 Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) Ok, we won't tell. We'll leave you in the dark. But, realistically I think most of us here don't believe that you believe what you say. No matter how illogical any of the 'government evidence' is, you buy it 'whole hog'. I think you would swear the assassination happened in 64 if you read that the government said it was. I think most think you very gullible and don't take you seriously. It might make a little sense if you actually tried to use the witness statements as they made them rather than how you change them to be. I just read a statement where you referred to Oswald's fingerprints on something on the 6th floor. You know his prints weren't there on anything linked to the shooting. Yet, you still say it. I don't need a denial on this, I wouldn't believe you anyhow.

So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. But I'm sure you're willing to admit that Baker is the ONLY witness to change his story to 'fit the truth', right?

Plus, Sawyer's bulletin also erroneously assumed that the assassin, after fleeing the Depository, was still "carrying" the weapon And where did you pick up that little gem 'erroneously assumed'? Brennan's WC testimony indicates that he thinks he talked to "Mr. Sorrels" right in front of the "Book Store" a mere minutes Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service did not return to Dealey Plaza until approximately 12:50 PM to 12:55 PM. Congrats DVP, now you've established that the 'broadcasted' description did not come from Brennan because he didn't give it to anyone until after 12:50

Aw come on, surely you can say if he looks thin vs heavy. That's the difference for his height. Thin? heavy? try real hard, you can do it.