Kenneth Drew

DVP, what ever happened to the mini series about 'Reclaiming History" I can't seem to find the air dates for it.

Next question please. Because the one you just asked is too ridiculous to warrant any response. it's those tough questions you don't like, right DVP?

I can answer that. It can not, and has not, been proved that shots were fired from the sniper's nest. It can not, and has not, been proved that shots were fired from the DalTex building. It also has not been proven that shots were not fired from the DalTex building.

the problem with that view is it doesn't show that the end where the photo was taken from is even more crowded. There was actually not enough room for an adult male to stand facing E or W because there was only about 15 inches available and most men's shoulders are wider than 15".

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging. Oh, it's a cramped space for sure. I've never denied that. But a rifle WAS being fired from the very window on Nov. 22. You know it, Ken (whether you'll admit it or not), I know it, and all reasonable people know it. So why pretend otherwise? BTW, here's an HQ pic (linked below) which shows part of the Nest with the shells still on the floor. So this pic was definitely taken on Nov. 22 itself, not later on. And the Texas History site also says "Nov. 22" for the date of this photo. And, yes, it is a tight squeeze for the gunman. We also know this from Luke Mooney's testimony. He said something about having to go in there sideways, I think. But since there can be no REASONABLE doubt about a rifle definitely having been fired from this cramped space, CTers really have nowhere to go with their arguments about how it "can't be done".... http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth339287 Then why hasn't anyone been able to put a shooter on the 6th floor? How has anyone proven a shot was fired from there? When did they prove it? I've never seen any proof. I've never seen a picture of anyone in that window when the shots were fired. Have you? Why did most of the people,,including police officers run to the grassy knoll? No matter how much you'd like to be able to prove it. Can't do it. Has never been done and you're not going to be the one to prove it. The simple reason: It didn't happen. It's a dead issue. 75% of Americans think it was a conspiracy. You're on the losing side. live with it.

I didn't say you were name calling. I was only responding to Mark's comment. Try reading for comprehension.

Oh, great. We're back to your make-believe 11/22/63 "Mauser" TV footage again, eh? In reality, of course, no such footage exists, and never did. So did you, or did you not see that footage on tv on 11/22/23/63? I did. That's how I know it existed on that day. I can certainly agree it won't likely be seen today.

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything. That's what Bug Man said. Wycht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he tookl off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one DVP. It does not enhance your image. Whenever Vince Bugliosi said in his many radio interviews that Oswald "would have been one of the last people in the world the conspirators would hire to kill the President", it is always based on the fact (based on the evidence) that Oswald DID KILL KENNEDY. IOW, in almost all the interviews he did in 2007, Vince establishes (in summary form, of course) Oswald's GUILT first. He then goes on to talk about how ridiculous it would be for anyone to actually hire this unstable loser with a 12-dollar gun to perform such a big "hit" for the Mafia or CIA or whoever else the CTers want to have involved. But the key in Vince's chronology is almost always to establish Oswald's guilt first. And from that POV and framework, Vince makes total sense to me, because it would be a situation where you'd have to believe (based on the clear evidence of Oswald's guilt) that the CIA or some other group actually DID hire Lee Oswald to murder the President for them, vs. the popular conspiracy theory we always hear about Oswald never firing a shot and then being used as the unwitting patsy for JFK's murder. Are you still spinning in a circle, is your head pointed to the front or back. So there is no way that LHO could have made the shot, he had a rifle that could not have made the shot, he had a scope that could not have made the shot and he was in a spot where he could not have been and no one else (including top marksmen) has ever made this shot, but old Bug Man is sure LHO did it. Let me know when you stop laughing and digging. And as I say, I'd ditch those links........

DVP, you should look into what you're saying. see that photo just above. See that window frame above his right suit lapel? that means his whole shoulder and arm are to the right (left in the photo) of the window frame. Then go and look at the original arrangement of stacks of boxes and you will see that the stack of boxes nearest that wall went to the right side (in the photo) of that window frame. So in reality, where it looks really crowded in that photo, it was actually much more crowded than that. Could he have moved more to his right, no, in fact, he could not even have been where he is.

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.) But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible? Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer (Mooney?) who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.) But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest. I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963. Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can. And, btw, I wasn't calling YOU any names (like "nincompoop") in my previous post. I was aiming those remarks at the make-believe "patsy framers". I'd also be interested in knowing the answer to this question, Mark (if you don't mind answering it).... Prior to this discussion in this EF thread, have you ever once made this statement to anyone previously?..... "A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this." -- Mark Knight; 6/30/15 I'm just curious to know if this suddenly popped into your head just this week (during this thread), or if you've believed for years (or decades) that the cramped Nest exonerates Oswald? Thanks. Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can. First of all 'to his right' would have been North, not West. and no he could not have scooted further to his right, there was a full stack of boxes at that spot.

But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.) But the main point is --- You, Mark Knight, cannot possibly know for certain what EXACT posture Oswald was in when he fired the shots at the President. Maybe he scooted just a little bit more to his right in the Nest as he shouldered his weapon, permitting just enough space between his left shoulder and the pipes. Why is that scenario not possible? Just because Oswald pre-arranged a few boxes in front of the window to use as a POTENTIAL rifle rest, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he used the boxes as a rifle rest at all. (But, yes, I know about the testimony of an officer (Mooney?) who said he saw a "crease" in one of the boxes, which would indicate that perhaps the gunman did utilize the rifle rest boxes.) But I'm not sure he rested the rifle on the boxes at all. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't. But my point in bringing that up is to suggest the idea that, due to the cramped quarters inside the Nest (and, yes, I agree it WAS cramped in there without a doubt), Oswald might have realized at the last minute he would need to scoot himself a little further to the right (or west) in order to get clear of the wall and/or pipes in the corner, and thereby that might have meant he wouldn't be directly behind his pre-arranged rifle-rest stack of boxes, so he might have to abandon the use of those boxes as a rifle rest. I can't see why such a scenario couldn't have played itself out in that manner on November 22, 1963. Can you prove that the above "scooted a little further to his right" scenario was impossible? I doubt you can. And, btw, I wasn't calling YOU any names (like "nincompoop") in my previous post. I was aiming those remarks at the make-believe "patsy framers". I'd also be interested in knowing the answer to this question, Mark (if you don't mind answering it).... Prior to this discussion in this EF thread, have you ever once made this statement to anyone previously?..... "A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this." -- Mark Knight; 6/30/15 I'm just curious to know if this suddenly popped into your head just this week (during this thread), or if you've believed for years (or decades) that the cramped Nest exonerates Oswald? Thanks. But Ken Drew and John Dolva seem to think that pic of Vince helps out their "No Righthanders Could Have Done This" position. (Go figure.) first, I didn't say that it does. But I made some points, which you don't refute. that where Bug man is standing had a box on the floor there and 3 boxes in front of him and a solid stack of boxes where spence is standing. There was barely enough room for an adult to stand in the area, and the window is fully open which gives them much more room 'theoretically' but the window was only half open on 11/22. So my comments don't help your arguments (not that you actually have an argument) at all.

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it. The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible. Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible. And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed). Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.) What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. So your best argument ...is...name-calling? Here's a challenge to you, Mr. Von Pein: Find a rifle, or a rifle-like object. Assume a right-handed shooter's position with said object...butt-stock on the right shoulder, left hand on the fore stock/forearm of the rifle-like object. Face your assumed target, as if you were going to kill it. Now, have a friend [going out on a limb here and assuming you have friend who would do this] and have said friend measure the distance from your left shoulder, at the buttstock of the rifle-like object, to the outer edge of your right shoulder. [HINT: shooters generally FACE their target when shooting; they generally do NOT turn the torso 90 degrees to the target when shooting. Try it; turning 90 degrees to your target is uncomfortable, and makes for inaccurate shooting. You'd think a man who would set up a sniper's nest would set it up so the shooting position wouldn't compromise either comfort or accuracy, with uncomfortable shooting positions leading to inaccurate shooting.] Now. tell is what that measurement is. Until or unless you can do THAT, you are merely GUESSING at the number of inches required for a right-handed person to fire a rifle from the position used in the Shaneyfelt photo...which is alleged to be almost EXACTLY the position the rifle was fired from that day. The Bugliosi picture means less than NOTHING to me, because it does NOTHING to approximate the amount of space available to a shooter on November 22, 1963. Might as well have shown a completely open 6th from the elevator position onward, for the value that photo has to this discussion. So your best argument ...is...name-calling? Isn't 'name calling' frowned on?

I know it will disappoint you, but I didn't bother to listen to the coerced testimony or statement of a witness after intimidation. No amount of re-writing or attempting to change history will work. We all saw him hold the rifle up, we also saw the second rifle and we saw him point to a spot on the rifle and state that it said Mauser. Now I certainly think people can make mistakes, but when there is a discussion and they can't decide what type rifle it is, then they get a 'supposed' rifle expert in and he holds it up and says that it say Mauser right there. I'm kinda gonna believe my eyes, not the lying re-creations from years later after so many witnesses have been killed because the intimidations didn't work for them. The ones that changed their stories managed to live a little longer than those that did not. I saw that on tv in 63, re-creations from later years were done for a reason.

There, of course, was never a "Mauser" found in the TSBD. The policemen who said it was a Mauser were mistaken- wait, it was an 'alleged' Mauser wasn't it. Surely you're not denying there were 2 rifles found on the 6th floor.

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it. The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible. Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible. And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed). Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.) What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. love re-reading this sentence just after hearing Bug Man talk about what a poor patsy LHO would have been, piss poor shooter with a 12 dollar rifle. But he's your Bug Guy.

What they WONT do is put a rifle in the man's hands and then show you how he needs to sit and aim if the limo was down by Z313 on Elm. They also WONT tell you that they removed an entire column of boxes where his right elbow would be... You see David... the WCR evidence is pure crap, designed to suggest one thing when in reality the original evidence suggested something completely different. With a stack of books taller than the man sitting on the box by the window, a person would have little if any room. Try an exercise where we superimpose the rifle into the line art showing the box locations. Starting to get a bit tighter in there... How large is a person's footprint? when standing a person is about 1 foor square at the feet and wider at the shoulders As you show in the image you posted, whne sitting the person's foorprint is even larger than 1 square foot... Not saying it's impossible - yet it's just not as roomy as the image you posted - as offered by the WCR - would suggest... You see Dave.. you like to stop short of authentication of the evidence since in every case the evidence is complete crap and you know it. The slightest breeze and the cards all come tumbling down.. But you knew that... which is why you tap dance around the issue with every post... see that stack of boxes there about where his right leg is in the above photo. If it don't fit, you must acquit.

Sorry DVP, that argument doesn't work. See where the agent right leg is? In the original, that space had a stack of boxes there, he couldn't have scooted any to the right and he also could not have been sitting where he is sitting. There's an old adage about knowing when to stop digging.

Not sure why you put that up. Bug Man kinda sounded like a babbling idiot. He basically destroyed his own case. Did you hear his summation at about 44 minutes in when he started his spiel about there 'was no way they would have used Oswald as a patsy, he was a poor shooter and barely only qualified as a sharpshooter and he only had a 12 dollar rifle which wouldn't hit anything. That's what Bug Man said. Wycht tore him a new a**hole on his argument. Bug Man sounded like an idiotic amateur. No wonder he tookl off at the end so he wouldn't have to summarize his babbling idiocy. I believe I would delete my link to that one DVP. It does not enhance your image.

So? What difference does that make? Shows your inexperience with a rifle. the LEFT hand/arm would have to be on the FORE end of the rifle stock....NOT behind the pipes.You just made my case for me, on two points: (1) A right-handed shooter couldn't have done this; and (2) You have no idea how one holds a rifle in order to fire it. The ABO desperation has almost reached its zenith now. It's absolutely incredible. Mark Knight is convinced that "a right-handed shooter couldn't have done this", even though Mark has no idea what the EXACT posture and positioning of the gunman was on 11/22/63. But yet Mark KNOWS that a righthander couldn't have maneuvered himself in that Nest in such a way in order to fire shots at Kennedy with a rifle. Incredible. And this just points out, once again, what utter nincompoops the people were who were (per CTers) trying to frame Oswald for the assassination. The forever-unknown "Patsy Framers" apparently decided to frame Oswald by setting up a Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor which could not accommodate a right-handed shooter (and their patsy was right-handed). Oops! Another gaffe by the plotters. (Just like their major gaffe of leaving that alleged Mauser up there on the sixth floor, even though the frame-up of Oswald requires a Carcano.) What a bunch of dolts those patsy framers were. Let's see if I've got this right. Anyone pointing out that it is impossible for a right handed shooter to fit into the snipers nest and fire a shot is a nincompoop. Yet that same fellow that points that out has no answer for 'how can someone fit into that spot and fire a shot right handed? There answer is that you must be a nincompoop for asking the question. And of course there were two rifles found there that day, one a Manlicher Carcano and one an 'alleged' Mauser. Notice there was no question that there were two, rifles, just that one of those was 'alleged' to be a Mauser. I just love these 'rants' by DVP, it shows he has lost the argument and has resorted to arm waving.

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave? The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words... "True or false". So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE. At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics. The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.) So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking). I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest. Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure. perhaps some see a desperate DVP dealing with a few newcomers to the fray? Not to mention lone nutter plants... If you see desperation, I suspect you'd dust off your daBug shrine and get some quality time in with your Reclaiming History book of nonsense... I'm surprised DVP didn't get disillusioned with da Bug Man after he got 'pushed aside' as he did when they quit listening to him.

Why not just go back and look and see what answers I gave? The very first words in this post of Jon's where he asked his three questions are these words... "True or false". So, I answered the questions with "True" and "False" replies, as can easily be seen HERE. At the bottom of his post, Jon then seemed to want "Yes or no" answers from me. But that's only semantics. The first question I did answer "True" (which is the same as answering "Yes", in case Ken Drew wasn't aware). But I then pointed out how Mr. Craig cannot be trusted to tell the truth, and pointed to this link below to back up my comment.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-69.html#Roger-Craig-Mauser-Lie And I did waffle on the "corrosion" question (for the reasons I already gave). And I think the answer that Bob Prudhomme provided on this corrosion/rust topic was a pretty good answer too. His answer was similar in some respects to the "I'm not sure if that is True or False" answer that I gave, but Bob gave more details. (And, incredibly, I agree with Bob on that point.) So, Ken, are there any additional nitpicky things on today's agenda? I'm sure you've got lots more minutiae you can dredge up as you try your darndest to keep Oswald's skirts nice and clean. And the intense nitpicking you exhibit in Post #105 is pure comic gold, Ken! You act as if Spence (or a second person) was really up in the Nest with Oswald (or the Oswald "look-alike", per your way of thinking). I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. But CTers just don't like the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been that gunman. So we get preposterous arguments about the impossibility of a "right-handed" shooter being able to perform the assassination from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest. Now THAT'S "Anybody But Oswald" desperation on full display, to be sure. I'm seeing a whole lot of "desperation" by CTers in this thread. Because even CTers surely HAVE to admit that SOMEBODY WITH A RIFLE was, indeed, able to squeeze into that Nest and point a rifle out that window. Really? and yet you can't prove it. If you believe the 4 witnesses that said they saw someone at that window with a rifle, then you should believe the others that also said they saw someone with a rifle at other windows. In fact there is photo evidence that 'almost' proves that, at least it shows the images of someone on the SW windows, something NOT seen in the SE window. No photo of a person or a gun in 6th Floor SE Window. that is really strange. And no, I didn't say Spence was up there on 11/22, but if YOUR evidence of the photo of the sniper's nest is accurate, there were boxes in that spot, and 4 boxes in the spot where Bug Man was.

Thanks, John. That's before either of my two stints here at the EF. It's possible I've discussed the "pipes" with some CTers in past years. I'll have to search my archives for "pipes" and "impossible" and "conspiracy theorists will do anything to keep Oswald out of that Nest". Two stints here at the EF?? What, are you here on assignment or something? It means he's been a member here on two different occasions. Definition of stint 1. A length of time spent in a particular way, especially doing a job or fulfilling a duty: a two-year stint in the military. I don't think anyone would pay someone, such as DVP for doing what he does. It has to be a hobby. Well, except I can't understand why he says he doesn't have the freedom to believe what he would like to believe. Or something like that. See below for his quote.

Indeed I do. And, btw, so do you. Nothing even remotely close to the effort you apply. And my budget is a fraction of yours. Oh, good. So you DO think I'm employed by someone who provides me with boatloads of cash to post on Internet forums. Thanks for confirming that. It's not pointless as long as there are people like you in the world who have no ability to properly determine the facts in the JFK case. I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists can be a useful and worthwhile hobby. Wouldn't you agree? (No, you probably wouldn't.) I think pointing out and knocking down the hundreds of myths and fantasies endorsed by conspiracy theorists Tell us all about one myth or fantasy you've knocked out. I sure don't know of any. And you certainly can't quote any 'fact' you've used, only myths and fantasies. And I have no objective to prove anything about the assassination except that a person with common sense can't possibly believe the Warren Commission version. Now, if you don't have common sense, or reasoning ability, you can believe it. barely

I predict no Nutter will give you a yes or no answer to these questions. 12:39 hey, I see DVP did 'attempt' to but had to equivocate. So I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Right, Ken? Depends, it's when you're trying to answer a question with 'bobs and weaves' instead of facts. But I do understand that necessity since you have no facts on your side. As in this case. If one person reported they were lined up. the answer is 'yes' did any photo show 2 fired shells and 1 unfired shell.. the answer can NOT be, maybe and question 3. If upon examination the firing parts of the rifle had corrosion on them, the answer is 'yes'. So what I expect from you or any nutter is a 1. yes 2 yes and 3 yes. Is that the answers you gave?

So, what are you saying, Kenneth? Are you saying that NO rifle was sticking out of that window at all on Nov. 22 (even though 4 witnesses said they saw a gun in that window)? I could just as easily turn the tables and ask the CTers this.... Since CTers are positive that a gunman was "blazing away" (as Ken put it) from the Grassy Knoll, why didn't any of the photographers get a picture of the gun or the gunman on the Knoll? Actually, they did. You've seen the Moorman Photo. Your turn.