Kenneth Drew

His autopsy report says he weighed an "estimated 150 pounds." I thought that, during an autopsy, the body would have actually been weighed in order to ensure that all information gleaned was accurate? I'm sure it (the body) was, but like so many other pieces of evidence, the weight had to fit the story.

damn you must have a big frame. I thought i did, but I was 5' 11 140 at age 25 and thought I was skinny. Now I'm 5' 10 at 75 and weigh 225 and am not really overweight. A few years back I trimmed down to 185 and thought I looked like skin and bones.

And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints Leave out the humor. Fingerprints? Now you're talking Mac Wallace. Right?

And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds.. But of course Brennan couldn't see much beyond the end of his nose and thought the black guy in the window eating a chicken bone was standing up with a rifle in his hand. Other than that.............

Assuming Oswald was about 5' 10" tall, looking at the photograph I'd have to say he weighed the 131 pounds. What do other members think? --Tommy PS Why is this important? Basically because police officer Marion Baker said the suspect he encountered either on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) was about 30 years old and weighed about 165 pounds. Key witness Howard Brennan said the assassin was about 5' 10" tall and weighed between "160 and 170 pounds." And last but not least, there's the mysterious "witness" who told police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer a few minutes after the assassination that he'd seen a man weighing "about 165 pounds" running away from the rear of the TSBD a few seconds after the assassination. About fifteen minutes after the assassination, Sawyer broadcast the first description of the suspected assassin over the police radio: "About 30 years old, 5'10" tall, 165 lbs." at the same age, I was 5' 11 and weighed 140. I'd say he looks about 130

Actually, Pat, Gary told me himself that he had the responsibility of deciding which books were carried by the store. I seem to recall he and I had this conversation when I asked him if the museum would be carrying Don Thomas's book. Despite the fact that he and Don were friends, and Gary obviously was a believer in the acoustics, I don't think they ever did stock it. Actually, Pat, Gary told me himself that he had the responsibility of deciding which books were carried by the store. And what would you expect him to say? I think, from what I've read and heard that Gary started out to believe there was a conspiracy but went along with the 'owners' of the 6th Floor museum in their story that the Warren Commission was the 'true story'. I see nothing wrong with that. I don't really see what difference it makes which books the museum carry. That can't be much of a market for Assassination books. I've certainly never bought one there, and would guess not many readers of this comment ever did either.

Maybe I should have been more clear in my comment that it was not JFK's xray. It is not an xray of JFK's skull after he was shot and prior to any alteration of his skull. In other words, it is not an xray showing the wounds as received on 11/22/63.

No, it's the truth that you don't want to face. And you'll just ignore the immense "Two Bullets That Didn't Exit" problem too. Won't you, Bob? And you'll ignore, as always, the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. But what do THEY know, right? After all, the HSCA's FPP was only comprised of NINE very trained pathologists. But we'll just trust Dr. Prudhomme instead of placing an ounce of faith in those NINE medical doctors. Right, Bobby? Oh, you mean the other 99 times you posted your charts and graphs was just the warm-up? The real ballgame hasn't started yet, eh? Good. I've got time to get a hot dog and a Dr. Pepper (LHO's favorite) before game time then. Bring it on, Dr. Anatomy. My answer will still be the same. It'll be that "child's rant" I posted above --- which is the absolute truth and you know it. But waste more bandwidth on 22 more anatomy charts if you want. I'm going to watch the Reds game instead. the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. You should get off those hallucinogens. Not one singe autopsist traced the path of the bullet that hit him in the back. NONE!

If you mean you want evidence that Dr. Beyer said the machine wasn't working, that's what he told the FBI agents working for Fiske. In the autopsy report, he checked "yes" for "X-rays made." But he stated in a deposition that he checked "yes" as a matter of habit before he had even begun the autopsy. (I guess it would have looked unprofessional to X out "yes" and write "no.").(Sources cited in The Strange Death of Vincent Foster by Christopher Ruddy, pp. 94, 293.) I think Vince Foster was murdered.

If he got it in the wrong place, he must've been reading the Warren Report. They never did come close.

Cliff I have a theory about the back wound, and the bullet that caused it. You see, I believe SA Sibert was on the right track when he phoned to find out about a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize". Unfortunately, he was taken in enough by Humes' act concerning the "shallow" back wound to be able, in his mind, to follow to a logical conclusion what effect a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize" would have in a wound. Such a bullet is called a "frangible" bullet. It is constructed usually of a copper alloy jacket with a core made from compressed powdered lead, in a heat process known as "sintering". If not sintered, the powdered lead (or other metal) can be bonded together with a glue. Whatever the method, the bullet is designed to enter soft tissue (or a skull) making only a small entrance wound. A lethal frangible bullet also has a hollow point on its nose, and this hollow point is key to making this bullet disintegrate after travelling only 2 or 3 inches in soft tissue. Once it enters semi- liquid tissue (lung, brain) the semi-liquid fills up the hollow point and, due to immense hydraulic pressure inside the nose caused by the velocity of the bullet, exerts an enormous pressure on the compressed powdered metal core. Long before the bullet can exit the other side of the chest (or skull), it will disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that comes to an instant stop inside the wound. This sudden stop and transfer of 100% of the bullet's energy to surrounding tissue is completely devastating, and likely had the effect of breaking every pumonary artery in the top of JFK's right lung. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, it is because he likely was. He had not only just lost 50% of his breathing capacity with the collapse of his right lung, there was also likely blood quickly flowing through the bronchi into his left lung and impairing its ability to transfer oxygen. While a frangible bullet could be explained away, in a head wound, as a full metal jacket bullet that behaved oddly and broke up, such was not the case with the back wound. The long slender FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet is very stable, and capable of tremendous penetration in flesh. An FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet entering JFK's back at 2000 fps, at the level of T3, was more than capable of going through JFK (exiting midway down his sternum), the jump seat and Connally, and possibly having enough legs to still wound Kellerman. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, It's likely because he had been shot in the throat. Seriously, you read that entire post, and that is the only comment you can come up with? I've read all that several times. I just wanted to point out that there is no mystery about why he grabbed his throat, it's because a bullet had just gone through it. But I will add, that I think he was hit in the back with a bullet that didn't penetrate very far, probably a dud and it likely fell out or was taken out before the autopsy, while all the other modifications were going on. As far as your frangible bullet theory, could have happened though you would think a lot more damage would have shown up.

Cliff I have a theory about the back wound, and the bullet that caused it. You see, I believe SA Sibert was on the right track when he phoned to find out about a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize". Unfortunately, he was taken in enough by Humes' act concerning the "shallow" back wound to be able, in his mind, to follow to a logical conclusion what effect a bullet that would "almost completely fragmentize" would have in a wound. Such a bullet is called a "frangible" bullet. It is constructed usually of a copper alloy jacket with a core made from compressed powdered lead, in a heat process known as "sintering". If not sintered, the powdered lead (or other metal) can be bonded together with a glue. Whatever the method, the bullet is designed to enter soft tissue (or a skull) making only a small entrance wound. A lethal frangible bullet also has a hollow point on its nose, and this hollow point is key to making this bullet disintegrate after travelling only 2 or 3 inches in soft tissue. Once it enters semi- liquid tissue (lung, brain) the semi-liquid fills up the hollow point and, due to immense hydraulic pressure inside the nose caused by the velocity of the bullet, exerts an enormous pressure on the compressed powdered metal core. Long before the bullet can exit the other side of the chest (or skull), it will disintegrate into a cloud of metal powder that comes to an instant stop inside the wound. This sudden stop and transfer of 100% of the bullet's energy to surrounding tissue is completely devastating, and likely had the effect of breaking every pumonary artery in the top of JFK's right lung. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, it is because he likely was. He had not only just lost 50% of his breathing capacity with the collapse of his right lung, there was also likely blood quickly flowing through the bronchi into his left lung and impairing its ability to transfer oxygen. While a frangible bullet could be explained away, in a head wound, as a full metal jacket bullet that behaved oddly and broke up, such was not the case with the back wound. The long slender FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet is very stable, and capable of tremendous penetration in flesh. An FMJ 6.5mm Carcano bullet entering JFK's back at 2000 fps, at the level of T3, was more than capable of going through JFK (exiting midway down his sternum), the jump seat and Connally, and possibly having enough legs to still wound Kellerman. If JFK appears to be choking at z224, It's likely because he had been shot in the throat.

A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible. I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? I just watched JFK again, amazing how much Garrison got right.

Well, I didn't "sit down" with anyone during the writing of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but I did "reach out" (which would be the more appropriate term) to a few people for help. (Or doesn't a "reach out" type of conversation count, Jim? Does it have to be a face-to-face "sit down" interview in order to qualify as "research"? ~shrug~) Anyway, I "reached out" via e-mail several times, as I recall, to two people in particular -- former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine and Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack. Both of those men were very helpful to me concerning various aspects of research I have done in the last few years. (See pages 65-66 and 414-415 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".) And I should point out that this "reaching out" to Blaine and Mack is something I did prior to helping Mel Ayton write the "BRD" book. But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. (Does that still count, Jim? Or am I disqualified on a technicality?) And there were several additional "reaching out" sessions that I have had with people like Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Jean Davison (three of the best JFK sources you could possibly hope to find, in my opinion) that I desperately wanted to include in the book, but due to space restrictions, there was a whole bunch of my stuff (more than 20,000 words, in fact) that had to be cut out of the manuscript. (Should I try to get "BRD 2" published?) Also.... Mel Ayton, the book's primary author, conducted several personal interviews. Each of which is sourced in the Notes & Sources section of the book. Also see: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html#BRD-Editing But the reality is that the amount of JFK assassination material is so vast and so detailed via all of the previous investigations and documents and books (and, in particular, Vincent Bugliosi's monumental tome, in which almost any source imaginable can be extracted and cited from Vince's 2800 total pages), that it makes "original" sources (via "sit down" interviews with people) less necessary in the years 2014 and 2015 when compared to many years ago, especially in the pre-"Reclaiming History" years before 2007. I think it really boils down to this question: How does the author evaluate the existing evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases? And I think Mel Ayton and myself have properly and fairly evaluated the evidence in those two murder cases (plus the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby as well). A conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio will, of course, disagree with my last statement above. Jim thinks all of the evidence (or pretty close to all of it) should be tossed out the window. He thinks it's tainted evidence. I, however, could not disagree more strongly. In fact, I've always felt that the "Everything Is Fake" mindset of many conspiracy theorists is nothing but a cop-out and a convenient way for those CTers to summarily dismiss nearly everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party--no matter how much evidence they have to toss aside. Quoting wound ballistics investigator Larry Sturdivan.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops', with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses', with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005) But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. Oh, well, that sure makes it a rock hard solid case. Yep, the final nail.

What a crock. If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., DPD, WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case. But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more). You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963. You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are. And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's hind quarters when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination. A 22-point reminder (in case anyone missed it).... The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact Well, except for the fact that there is no evidence of it.

That's not a fake Xray, it just isn't JFK's head.

Wow! That's the best you can do, Jimmy? One very hazy and indistinct report regarding people who have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical evidence in the JFK assassination? Mighty weak, Jim. In fact, pathetic. But thanks for illustrating that the BEST the mighty James DiEugenio can do in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case is a reference to a quote in Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book, which is a blurb involving the Odio incident, which everybody knows (even me) is a great-big huge QUESTION MARK to begin with. As Jimbo's favorite of all female authors (hehe) said in her 1983 book.... "When these men visited Odio's apartment, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- Jean Davison; Pages 193-195 of "Oswald's Game" http://oswalds-game.blogspot.com in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case Same song, 422nd verse. You ignore the fact that not one piece of evidence, whether faked or not, has ever established any proof as to who committed the crime. No one has to claim the evidence is fake when there is NO evidence that proves guilt. All the crap, such as fake BY photos is not evidence, it's fake pictures. The Manlicher Carcano rifle is not 'fake' evidence. It's not evidence. If something can't be established as authentic, it's not allowed as evidence. So all the stuff that you bring up is not evidence.

Jon, What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"? Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody. And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it). And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers have strayed.) So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway). Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme. But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it. And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22? If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not. And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. There's no evidence that the Frazier's made up the story about the bag. Someone may have made it up for them. There certainly was never any evidence that a long paper bag ever existed prior to the police dept making a few of them.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion..... Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one. All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung. Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process: As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was. As usual, David, you are completely wrong. This is a textbook example of "pseudo-debate." The bullet holes in JFK's clothes settle the issue of the location of JFK's back wound. This fake debate between Von Pein and Hay gives the impression the issue is in doubt. It isn't. There is no debate. JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- 4 inches below the bottom of the shirt collar. The round didn't exit. These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over. LNers will never get over it so there's no point in debating it with them. These are facts a whole lot of CTs need to get over. Not quite sure why, that's what most CTer's believe, I think

He thinks that with sheer verbosity and diversion he answers my query. And he also thinks no one will notice that he has not. But, of course, he's wrong. I think that's his modus operandi. DVP makes an incorrect statement, such as "he's debunked, etc, etc," and when you ask he when and where, he simply repeats the claim. I can say for sure that DVP does not understand the US legal system where it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt to 'convict', not to turn loose. DVP, you have to have proof that LHO did it. You have none.

You see Dave, the real problem here is not whether Brennen is credible... it's that he claims to see what he says he saw and provides a description of the man which is impossible given the circumstances. So if we are going to take him at his word at the earliest possible time, his affidavit describes: early 30's 165-175 lbs light colored clothing could not confirm a scope even though he sees over 70% of the rifle see him take aim and fire yet changes this story in testimony You see Dave... the problem remains that regardless of the lack of corroboration and his failure to ID the man, Brennen is THE BEST WITNESS and the source for Oswald's description at 12:45 even though it is about as far off a description of Oswald as can be... we can forgive Brennen since he supposedly said what he saw, the problem is not Brennen per se, but what is done with his information by the WC lawyers and how he isrepresented in the Report. WCR Summary/Conclusions p5. Several eyewitnesses in front of the building reported that they saw a rifle being fired from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. One eyewitness, Howard L. Brennan, had been watching the parade from a point on Elm Street directly opposite and facing the building. He promptly told a policeman that he had seen a slender man, about 5 feet 10 inches, in his early thirties, take deliberate aim from the sixth-floor corner window and fire a rifle in the direction of the President’s car. Brennan thought he might be able to identify the man since he had noticed him in the window a few minutes before the motorcade made the turn onto Elm Street. At 12 :34 p.m., the Dallas police radio mentioned the Depository Building as a possible source of the shots, and at 12:45 p.m., the police radio broadcast a description of the suspected assassin based primarily on Brennan’s observations. 12:45 Dispatcher Attention all squads, the suspect in the shooting at Elm and Houston is supposed to be an unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build, armed with what is thought to be a 30-30 rifle, - repeat, unknown white male, approximately 30, 165 pounds, slender build. No further description at this time or information, 12:45 p.m. Oswald was 24, 130 lbs, wore dark clothing and supposedly fired an obviously scoped rifle... And yet can claim that his FAILURE TO ID was because he was afraid or that the ID was already made? Note: I have to disagree with my friends here about David's quote: "If you don't believe the WC then you must think everything is fake right?" It's a poor sentence at best and by its nature tautological... when we unravel it it SHOULD state: "If you can't authenticate everything incriminating Oswald, you can't believe the WC or its report's conclusions" As David so enjoys to forget, we are Innocent until PROVEN guilty... when the evidence used to prove guilt cannot be authenticated as real evidence, it does not prove guilt and in fact, supports the original assumption of innocence. When a prime witness to the man shooting a rifle in the window contradicts his own signed statements - that evidence is no longer authenticated... it can be entered into evidence but with caveats. It cannot be built upon since the foundation is dry rot. So you see David, you cite the WCR yet you don't take the next step and provide authentication, it's okay since neither did the WC... but you calling C2766 "Oswald's rifle" when you can't authenticate any of the steps involved in getting the rifle from point A to point B... the rifle ceases to be evidence of his guilt but only Evidence of the Conspiracy to incriminate. If an early 30's 170lb man in light clothing was shooting at JFK from that window, it most certainly could not have been our little 130 lb Oswald wearing dark clothing.... and since neither you nor the WC could offer authenticated criminal evidence of his guilt, you play this game. The time is coming... it's one thing to index and describe the conclusional conflicts of the report - I am going to illustrate topic by topic how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy in each and every aspect of the case... ---------------- Oswald was wearing a dark brownish red over shirt, button down collar, which from the side, while holding a rifle to shoot would not show too much white T-shirt. The Nov affidavit states he was looking at the man in the window when the last shot was fired... yet in his testimony... not so much. Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle explode? Did you see the flash of what was either the second or the third shot? Mr. BRENNAN. No. Mr. McCLOY. Could you see that he had discharged the rifle? Mr. BRENNAN. No. For some reason I did not get an echo at any time. The first shot was positive and clear and the last shot was positive and dear, with no echo on my part. Mr. McCLOY. Yes. But you saw him aim? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. Mr. McCLOY. Did you see the rifle discharge, did you see the recoil or the flash? Mr. BRENNAN. No. Mr. McCLOY. But you heard the last shot. Mr. BRENNAN. The report; yes, sir. I've read, many times, (don't remember where) that the description bulletin that was broadcast at 12:45 was prior to Brennan talking with anyone to give them a description.

, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. That's not true at all. First of all, there are no pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald, so if it doesn't exist, it's not fake.

DVP, you're gonna have to do better than that. You're saying you are your own and only source of proof. I've looked over some of your links and have never found anything resembling proof that LHO ordered a rifle, received a rifle, owned a rifle, fired a rifle (other than MC). When/if will you begin to show some of this evidence you claim to have?

A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading "RH") -- See, I told you so. So you're saying he was dumb to make that claim?