Kenneth Drew

Please try to follow David. The image on the right is Ford's movement of the wound on Ryberg. I agree, it is totally wrong. Why do you suppose Ford had him draw it like that when the shirt shows exactly where the entry wound was? When you look at the hole's location in the Fox image - notice the shoulder blade... is the hole above or below the top of the shoulder blade? Why then does the Ryberg I posted earlier in my composite next to my shirt overlay also have that hole in the exact same incorrect spot? You know the side view with the bullet path from that incorrectly placed hole to the front As I've asked you - simply download the image with the skeleton and shirt overlay and put and "X" where you think the WCR says the entry was... I'll post it again for you... just show us what you believe to be true The hole is below the center of the shoulder blade on that photo, but everyone realizes this doesn't represent reality at all. This whole thing is fiction to support a magic bullet.

My post that you so foolishly think makes me look bad and makes you look good speaks for itself. It says that I, unlike CTers, do not have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness". THAT'S the "freedom" I do not possess. And yet you use that quote as a signature because you actually are silly enough to think I'm suggesting I don't have the "freedom" to believe what I want to believe. (As if I would ever want to start creating unsupportable conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.) Here's an idea, Ken --- Why don't you switch signatures for a while and use the following quote of yours. I'm sure you think this makes you look GOOD, right? So why not spotlight it?.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" I'll let you and Gary sort that out. If he's okay with you telling us what he says, that's fine with me. I think i'll keep the same signature for a while. It kinda tells me that some people have freedom in the US and some people don't. You tell us you don't. If you are fine, surrendering your freedom, that's your problem, not mine.

I think the reason so many drawings were used is because the photos don't show the story they want them to show, so they can draw pictures and diagram their 'story'. for example in that actual photo, the bullet hole is actually 'below' the shoulder blade near the spine. About 5 inches below his collar line. That's where the hole was described until it had to be changed for the Magic Bullet. But since photos such as the one above actually shows it about 5 inches down, they just can't make it fit. No way to get the non existent bullet up to the throat level and no way to get it through the spinal column. Since there was actually no bullet that ever 'came out' of his throat, the whole path through is kinda meaningless. But we can keep discussing 'if' forever.

You just did it again. You just again implied that I might be using Gary Mack's name to make "your [my] statement". And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing. And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing. Are you auditioning for a stand up routine? Did you or did you not say that you don't have the freedom to say what you would like to say? What does that mean? Why don't you have freedom? You do live in the US, right?

WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either. if the ruler is 6 inch, I'd put it at the 4/1/2 in mark. If it's a 12 inch ruler, which it's not, it would be about the 10" mark.

WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either. if the ruler is 6 inch, I'd put it at the 4/1/2 in mark.

WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~ By the way. I'll point this out to you because you miss the obvious. Unless that person's hand is about 12 inches long, the ruler isn't either.

Kenny's middle initial has GOT to be D. ("Denial".) You're batting .000.

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Where is the damage control? What did I accuse you of? I asked you a question, which you continue to duck. Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? I'm not saying that he does, I'm asking you if he allows you to speak on his behalf? Simple question.

I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. But Ken is certainly way off if he thinks the wound is "5-6 inches" down on that ruler. If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), then there's no way it's halfway down the ruler's length (quite obviously). None of the autopsy photos are "fakes". The HSCA proved that fact in Volume 7 of their materials. Go look it up, Jon. Or were all 20 people on the HSCA's Photographic Panel telling a bunch of lies too? I'll help you look it up. Here's the link.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0024a.htm If it's a 12-inch ruler (which it likely is), Is that a 'fact' or an 'assumption' or a 'wild ass guess' or what? I figured it was a 6 inch ruler, that's standard, isn't it in autopsy rooms? I don't think ANYTHING is really being "measured" in the "ruler photo", Jon. The ruler is probably just there for scale. LOL. scale? there are no numbers on the scale. so the hole is down x inches from x? The bullet hole is down near the end of that ruler, below the shoulder blade, it is not up there at the top end. If it is there, then they are measuring how far it is from it. Nope, down below point of right shoulder blade. You seem to be trying to move it in that photo. I'll give you permission to quote any part of this comment. that's 'total freedom'.

In that quote above you are directly implying that I just might be using Gary Mack's name falsely What? I asked you a question. I didn't 'imply' anything. No interpretation is necessary. I was quite clear. "Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Ken Drew Correct, I didn't accuse you of anything or imply anything. I asked you a very clear question, which you ducked. You most certainly did. You accused me of pretending to be Gary Mack. That's basically what you were implying. That's your attempt at humor? You said I accused you then you said I was 'basically implying' which is it? If I accused you, quote me at accusation. You're just trying to do some damage control now, because you know that what you accused me of doing is downright stupid. Are you calling me stupid? Is that 'calling me a name'? No damage control needed by me. Not that it's really any of your business, but the answer is Yes to the latter question. I do have Gary's express permission to post his e-mail messages on public forums like this one. So you don't quote his entire messages, you just pick and choose what you want to post. And that post above that you quoted from, in that message to you, he asked you to post that to the forum? Or did he give you permission to post some parts of the message but not all of it. How do you decide which parts of his messages do you quote. Are some parts of the message specifically addessed to you with directions of what to do with them? Are you hiding something. Does this have anything to do with you not being 'totally free' to post what you would like to post? You sure stepped in a big pile of doo doo, I'll bet you don't make that mistake again.

Jon, you're correct that the photo seems to not be a real photo. Nothing is identified on the photo, and as I said you can't even read the numbers on the ruler. But the hole is down at about what I would say is about the 5-6 inch mark on the 'ruler'. DVP seems to think it is there at the top of the ruler. If it's there at the top, then the measurer would be measuring the bullet hole to be 0 " down from 0". Would anyone measure that way, well, except DVP. It seems rather clear that the bullet hole is about 45 degrees down and to the left of the point of his right shoulder blade. That seems to be the spot where I've seen it on some other photo. I can't figure out how a bullet that was traveling at quite a downward angle at that point to come back up about 16 inches or so to go into Connally. No wait. I'll get a nutter to explain it to me.

DVP, if you're going to claim that line represents the trajectory, tell us again how it went through the spinal column without hitting anything. I don't see the track of the bullet represented that entered his throat from the front. Where did it go?

I'm not sure if I learned to read a ruler in school or not. Likely I did not. However, I do get my eyes checked by an opthamologist, which it seems you have been neglecting. If you can't see that hole there about 5 inches down from the end of the ruler, I'm not even sure that eye doc would help. You can hardly use that line to show a downward angle from that point because then you have to turn it upward and to the right to get it over to Connally. Whoops.

Gee, kinda on your high horse there DVP? I didn't accuse you of anything. Give me the quote. You seem to have misunderstood that as you seem to misunderstand every other thing you read. I simply asked you a question, which I notice that you ducked. I didn't accuse you of 'misrepresenting yourself' you seem to have quite a reading comprehension problem. If Gary Mack is a member here, why doesn't he comment himself? If he's going to refer to me, or other commenters here, he should grow a pair and come on and post where we can comment to him. Did he 'ask' you to post his comments here, or did he give you his permission to post quotes by him here? I understood the reason for personal messenging on the Forum was that your comments could or would remain confidential and not be posted. I don't see in his 'quotes' where he asked you or gave you permission to share his personal messages. Did he? or did you just selectively decide which parts of his comments to you that you would share and left off the part where he asked you or gave you permission to share. Would you post and quote that section of his comments, or all of his comment to you?

When have I ever suggested the shirt and jacket are lying? But it's the hole in Kennedy's BACK that counts the most. Why would anyone think the CLOTHING trumps this picture?.... (Cue Cliff Varnell's entrance....stage right.) And how anyone could conclude that the throat wound was located HIGHER than the back wound after comparing these two pictures below is a really big (HSCA) mystery that I have yet to solve.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html DVP, see those two photos near the bottom? see that stick sticking thru from the throat? why does that photo show it coming out about 4 or 5 inches above the hole in his back. I can't really read that ruler, but the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point. that is 'below' his shoulder blades. that stick is coming out near the hump which is above his shoulder blades. So what do you get from that, and what is the point of the stick going thru at the wrong place? Oh, and that point where the stick comes out at the front, is that the point where the bullet changed direction upward and to the right?

When have I ever suggested the shirt and jacket are lying? But it's the hole in Kennedy's BACK that counts the most. Why would anyone think the CLOTHING trumps this picture?.... (Cue Cliff Varnell's entrance....stage right.) And how anyone could conclude that the throat wound was located HIGHER than the back wound after comparing these two pictures below is a really big (HSCA) mystery that I have yet to solve.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html David, I just can not figure out where these Nutters are coming from. One thing they do that does work is they keep others arguing about something that we know did not happen and whether/how it 'really' happened. Example: Arguing about whether a bullet could have gone into JFK on the downward angle, not hit anything that would slow it down or change direction, yet it changes direction upward, comes out in exactly the same entrance wound where JFK had already been hit and then turns to the right, travels a little ways, changes direction again to go into Connally in a right to left direction, hits a rib but does no damage to the bullet except changes direction of the bullet again to hit connally's wrist which was to the right of his body at the time, breaks the large wrist bone, does no damage to the bullet, bullet changes direction again and hits with so little speed that it barely gets into the leg enough to keep it, then after being transported to the hospital, the bullet once again comes to life and jumps over to a gurney that neither JFK or JC occupied that day. But then it was miraculously found and fortunately the testing shows that it was fired from a rifle that had not been fired (due to rust in the barrel) for some time. Was that a 'magic bullet' or what. But then back to my point. Everyone with two brain particles to rub together knows that did not happen, but we sit here day after day with the Nutters saying we are nuts for not believing them. And we argue with them that it could not have happened, while they insist that it did. And of course, they say if was fired from a spot that it was physically impossible to fire the shot from. And they say there were witnesses, but even though hundreds had camera's, darn it, wouldn't you know it, not one soul thought to take a photo of that rifle sticking out the window firing shots at the president.

What a total waste of time. You can't move all the boxes that were in the way and make room and then claim he 'had room'. Where that guy is sitting is way too far to his right and even then only his left arm lines up with the window opening. Right handed shot from his position not possible to the X spot. Come on DVP, quit using propaganda.

Are you and Gary Mack in a legal arrangement where you are his 'official mouthpiece'. Is there a reason he can't say it for himself? Is he paid to say the things he says to you but can't come on a public forum to say the same things. His unwillingness to say if for himself lowers the value of what he says. Did he actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say? If he thinks all this is so boring, why does he bother to read it and then have to 'relay' his thoughts? Is he a 'real' person being held incommunicado except to you? Gary's (or yours) statements about how much room is/was there means no more than my intuition tells me. There clearly was not room for the shots to be made from that window, regardless of what DVP/Mack says.

Why does your link not work?

I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any? And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity. No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob? I know, I know. I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake....and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399....and the two front-seat bullet fragments are phony....and all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window were wrong (or l-i-a-r-s)....and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest! I love it. Either that, or Norman's just a blatant l-i-a-r, which is apparently what many CTers believe he was.) Don't you find it strange that Harold Norman heard shells hitting the floor one storey above him, a sound of maybe 20-30 decibels if you were actually standing beside a shooter, but did not hear a 150 decibel rifle shot from a barrel poked out of a window directly over his head, perhaps seven feet away? I'm quite certain DVP would have no problem with that.

I wish you would share this evidence with us, Dave. Unless, of course, you don't really have any? And the cycle of madness continues. Round and round till infinity. No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. Why do you suppose that is, Bob? (I know, I know, I'm supposed to just believe all three shells are fake and the C2766 rifle is a plant and so is CE399 and so are all 4 witnesses who saw a rifle in the 6th-floor window and Harold Norman didn't know what he was talking about when he said he heard three shells hitting the floor AS THE ASSASSINATION WAS HAPPENING. (I always get a chuckle out of that one from the CT POV --- Real-Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting In The Sniper's Nest!. I love it.) No amount of evidence satisfies CTers. And it never will. And do you think we will ever see any evidence? We're all still waiting for the first provable evidence. Especially something not planted.

Yeah, by box office standards, I guess it was a bomb. Sort of like the JFK book I helped Mel Ayton write. A very good book, but a complete bomb as far as sales go (just as I predicted). Sales could hardly be any worse, in fact. But I'm proud of that book nonetheless, because in abbreviated form it lays out the actual facts of John F. Kennedy's murder, without all the conspiracy-flavored nonsense that permeates this case and forums like this one---with this thread being a prime example of the "nonsense". I mean, really, no shooter firing from the Sniper's Nest? Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real. Can a theory possibly get any nuttier than that one? Get real. One of the more interesting conundrums is that Nutters call CTer's 'theorist'. Can a shooter from the snipers nest ever be anything other than a theory? Can the single bullet theory ever be anything but a theory? Can LHO owning a rifle ever be anything other than a 'theory'? Note: I downloaded a sample of that book to my Kindle. I'll at least read til I get sick on my stomach. Fiction does that to me.

It got watered down to a 90-minute feature film -- "Parkland". (Which you probably already knew.) "Parkland" is a pretty good film, too. (But I would have loved the 10-hour mini-series better, of course.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/parkland-2013-movie.html Yes, all I can find about Parkland indicates it was a real bomb.

In fact, it's a downright laughable question. As in you have to laugh because you can't answer it? DVP, I'm sure that Bob doesn't expect you to have any proof that LHO fired a shot at JFK, as I certainly don't expect you to. When an event did not happen, it's a little tough to prove it did.