Kenneth Drew

Robert, You mean Oswald didn't shoot him from that window? Just kidding, folks. --Tommy --Tommy OMG, what a revelation. Yep, you got that right.

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out. But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding? Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked? And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess. Why not? People change their minds all the time. Why not? People change their minds all the time. See DVP's statements as evidence of that.

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone. When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. There's nothing to knock down yet, David. You still haven't shown any link between LHO and the assassination other than the role of a patsy. Once you put up something to knock down, the sledge hammers will get started.

Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman. As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. We just don't all understand how lucky we are to have a Nutter here with the ability to discern 'truth'. Well, except for the little technicality that he can't put a rifle in LHO's hands, he can't put LHO in the sniper's nest, he can't put LHO at the JDT scene. Other than that, he's started trying to drive tacks around the edge, that's his weak attempt to get it nailed down.

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP Let's say Frazier is not a xxxx, the bag was really 24" long and LHO carried no lunch bag. All these are 'facts', not 'myths', so that means there was no rifle in the 24" bag and the lunch bag found in the sniper's nest with chicken bones did not belong to LHO. We all accept these as 'truths' since we all know that everyone only tells the truth. You can't 'assume' anyone was 'mistaken' if you're going to make that claim, you have to have proof, not imagination.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable. Colin Crowe is one of the great analytical minds researching the assassination, and it is a shame he does not frequent this forum, just as it is a shame that Sean Murphy has not been around here for a while. However, the real shame is how DVP cherry picks Colin's comments, and attacks only part of his argument. And, of course, DVP feels quite safe attacking him here as he doesn't think Colin will respond. DVP and Colin Crowe in a debate? I'd bet heavily on Colin, as I believe he's forgotten more about the evidence than DVP will ever know. I'd say that would be a safe bet, Robert.

This is gonna be standing room only......

MAGIC ??????BULLET-----THEORY............. YEAH! GO, Bob.......

Looks like it's time to shrug those shoulders once again after reading the above convoluted mess penned by Mr. Drew. Do you really not know what I meant by an "anti-SBT re-enactment"? Or do you really think JFK was NOT shot at all in the areas of the upper back and throat and that John Connally suffered NO wounds at all? ~shrug time ensues~ Well, it's like this DVP. First you say that nobody has ever produced an accurate re-enactment of no shots being fired at JFK and JFK not getting killed. Then you say that you can't believe that has never been done. Then you want us to believe that if it had been done that you would have the freedom to believe what you choose to believe, even though you have repeatedly told us that you don't have the total freedom to believe what you wish to believe. Then you're back to shrugging your shoulders, and I suppose you have your tongue in cheek also. Footnote: were you unable to find emoticons for those two activities? Oh, and you did ask a question, though you don't say if you will be free to believe my answer. But, yes JFK was shot in the back, about 4-6 inches below his neck and he was shot in the throat from the front of the limo. The angle of the back shot seems to match with the DalTex building. The front shot hit the windshield on the drivers side. Don't have a clue where that shooter was located. Now, Davey, before you start shooting that down, first tell us if you're free to believe what you choose to, then hit the meat of the story.

Colin comments and is a regular on the JFK assassination Forum, by Duncan McRae. He's got a level head and is a CTer. Very knowledgeable.

Unlike DVP, I have the freedom to believe you..

So what? You actually think that I am going to think you have "debunked" anything connected with the SBT? You must be kidding, Pat. You've debunked NOTHING. Least of all the viability of the Single-Bullet Theory. You and I both have a lot of written material on our respective websites. And we're both in the same boat (so to speak). I.E., I will never convince you that ANYTHING relating to the SBT is true. And, conversely, and knowing what I know about the SBT, you are never going to be able to convince me that the SBT is false or that the WC was a pack of liars with respect to the SBT. That's the way it is. And that's the way it likely always will be. Pat, Here is the thing that makes your anti-CE903 rant unworthy of consideration (and you know this is true, but you seem to forget it every time I bring it up)... CE903 represents the AVERAGE ANGLE between Z210 and Z225. So THAT'S why the chalk mark doesn't quite "line up" perfectly. Yes, I do have an article entitled "The SBT Perfection Of CE903". But I've added an addendum near the bottom of that article to talk about that "average trajectory angle" thing. But, in general terms of proving the workability and doability of the SBT, I do still think that CE903 does equal "SBT Perfection". Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. And they never will (even if they try). And that's mainly because the SBT is so obviously true. And it's a heck of a lot more difficult to try and re-create a fantasy than it is to try and re-create something that actually happened. And that's why the Warren Commission was able to get so close to perfection when re-creating the Single-Bullet Theory in that Dallas garage on May 24, 1964. Because they were re-creating something that the sum total of the evidence indicates actually happened on Elm Street on November 22, 1963. Let's see a CTer produce an anti-SBT re-enactment of the bullet wounds sustained by JFK and Governor Connally that comes within ten miles of CE903. No CTer ever has. What an interesting statement. Let me see if I got that right.... produce a re-enactment of something that didn't happen. And get this, it has to be accurate. And if I understand DVP, he doesn't believe it has ever been done. Well, even though DVP doesn't have the freedom to believe as he wishes, I'm gonna give him one here. I'll bet he's right. I'll bet there is no accurate re-enactment of something that has never taken place. I'm gonna guess that DVP is not suggesting what he is suggesting..;; but is he?

Nietzsche said something to the effect of "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep."

It makes little difference what WORD was used to describe the point of entry ("back" or "neck" or "base of the back of the neck"), because Commission Exhibit 903 proves that Arlen Specter and Company knew where to place that wound on a human body. And they placed it just where they should have placed it---in the UPPER BACK, just like it shows in the autopsy photo and in the autopsy report. The semantics are secondary next to what the Warren Commission DID when Lyndal Shaneyfelt took this photo in CE903. And the wound is NOT in the "neck". Period. So maybe it's time for CTers to let go of the 50-year myth labelled "The Warren Commission Lied About The Location Of The Back Wound". Because just one quick glance at Commission Exhibit No. 903 should make every conspiracy theorist who has ever embraced that myth turn six shades of crimson.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html See, this is what fascinates/bothers me, David. You KNOW I have chapter after chapter debunking all those programs and all those re-enactments you described in a previous post. You KNOW that Dale Myers conceded my point that the jump seat was 2 1/2 inches inboard, while his animation shows it 6 inches inboard, and that he tried to explain this by saying he showed it in the wrong place for the purpose of "clarity". You know also that he admitted his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted and inaccurate, due to its being filmed at an angle off a monitor. And you know these things because you helped bring them to light after begging him to defend himself against the likes of me. And yet you continue to pretend--for whose benefit I have no idea--that an honest investigation into the assassination only leads in one direction--that CTs are deceptive and unwilling to look at the "truth" before them, and that all those telling you what you want to hear are somehow honest and scientific. I mean, Lucien Haag's articles and TV appearances are embarrassingly awful. But, beyond that, let's go back to Specter. I have proved, beyond any doubt, using the words of the Bethesda and Warren Commission staff, that: 1) Joseph Ball was assigned the task of explaining how a bullet fired from six floors up could enter on the back and exit the throat. 2) Chief Justice Warren had a melt-down when the witnesses started saying things indicating there had been more than one shooter, and ordered Specter to bring the autopsy in ahead of schedule to testify as soon as possible. 3) Joe Ball accompanied Specter out to Bethesda the next day, and asked the doctors to bring along drawings depicting the back wound trajectory for their testimony the next Monday. 4) The drawings created inaccurately depicted the back wound trajectory, and actually moved the back wound up to the base of the neck. 5) No measurements as to the actual wound location were provided the artist creating these drawings. 6) The artist received a commendation letter for "depicting the situation required." 7) Dr. Humes, in his testimony claimed he'd provided measurements to the artist. 8) Dr. Humes, in his testimony, inaccurately claimed this back wound, as described in the autopsy protocol, was on the "low neck," when it was really on the "upper thorax". 9) Dr. Humes and Specter knew a wound on the "low neck" was out of alignment with the holes on the clothing. but had an emergency meeting on the Sunday before Humes' testimony and decided to get around this by claiming Kennedy (at 6 foot, 170) was "extremely well-muscled, and that this forced his shirt and jacket to bunch up in the back. 10) Even so, Specter had his doubts, and asked to have Humes and/or himself verify the wound location in the drawings before performing a re-enactment of the shooting. 11) On the day of the re-enactment, Specter was shown a photo of the back wound, which showed it to be on the back, below the shoulder line. 12) Specter marked the jacket worn by the Kennedy stand-in accordingly, and used this mark in the re-enactment to check the bullet's trajectory at various points of the Zapruder film. 13) The cross-hairs of the rifle/camera used in the re-enactment showed that a bullet entering this location would exit on a straight line far below Connally's back wound. 14) The re-enactment then moved to a warehouse, for my precise measurements. These measurements showed that a bullet fired from the sniper's nest and entering Kennedy's back at the location of the chalk mark would not be likely to exit his throat and then hit Connally in the armpit. 15) When Thomas Kelley (the Secret Service agent who showed Specter the back wound photo and placed the chalk mark on the jacket) testified about the re-enactment, Specter corrected him and said it was a shoulder wound, and asked him if he meant to say it was a wound on the back of the neck. He then showed Kelley the drawing of the wound at the base of the neck, and asked him if this was what they used to mark the jacket. Kelley, said yes. 16) When Lyndal Shaneyfelt of the FBI testified about the trajectory studies performed in the warehouse, Specter introduced CE 903, showing this trajectory from the front, and failed to enter any photos of the trajectory taken from behind, showing the chalk mark location. He then had Shaneyfelt testify that the the trajectory "approximated" the back wound location--which hid that it was in fact inches away, no matter how they had the stand-in sitting or bending over. 17) Although Specter, in his internal memos, had regularly called the wound a "back" wound over and over, his chapter on the assassination, as submitted after the re-enactment proved a back location didn't work, or at least not as well as a base of the back of the neck location, now called the wound a wound at the base of the neck, or a wound on the back of the neck. 18) While working on his book The Death of a President, William Manchester spoke to Kennedy's (and Johnson's) physician, George Burkley, and Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, and put in contact with people who'd actually seen the photos, and was similarly told the wound was on the back of the neck. 19) When this issue came to the public's attention in late 1966, Dr. Boswell, who'd been issued an order of silence, suddenly became available to the news media, and told them it was indeed a wound on the back of the neck, as shown in the drawing, and not on the back, as shown on the face sheet. Unmentioned in these interviews was that Boswell had signed an inventory of the photos a few weeks before, in which this wound was described as a shoulder wound. 19) The next year, after receiving talking points from the Justice Dept. telling him what to say, Dr. Humes similarly testified that the drawings created for the Warren Commission, in which the back wound was shown to be on the back of the neck, were accurate. 20) Specter continued for the rest of his life to claim the wound was on the back of the neck. Now, this is a crystal clear case demonstrating that the back wound was moved upwards for the commission, and that a number of people collaborated in spreading the lie that the back wound was a neck wound. This is as clear as history gets. But this, supposedly fails to interest you one iota. You could say "Yeah, they lied about it in the beginning, because they didn't know if they could prove it at that time.. So thank God we now can show how it all works without pretending the wound was on the back of the neck." But you don't. No, instead you continue to pretend that a picture taken from the front, and showing a trajectory rod passing over the shoulder, lines up with a chalk mark inches below the shoulder line. Bizarre. Note that they consistently use 'drawings' to represent where the shot was when photos showing the truth are readily available so that no 'description' of where the wound was is necessary. That's a major clue that 'they' don't/didn't want you to know the 'truth'.

Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well. that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. So, in the future, you're going to tell us when you have tongue in cheek, and/or other mannerisms that we need to decipher what you 'really mean'? Well, you've already got your shrugging system working, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more symbols, statements etc. Maybe there's a modicon for tongue in cheek, shoulder shrugging, etc. Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny? Shouldn't the last four words have given you just a TINY hint, Kenny? I guess they were so 'tiny' that I didn't even see them. Where are they?

Yes, exactly. I do have that freedom. But keep trying to make your new signature look like something it's not. I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). So it's nothing new to me. I'm used to CTers misinterpreting things. You do it every day (almost every post). Ahhh, now I have it figured out. If a CTer says it, they are misinterpreting it. If YOU say it then you are stating it correctly, (as you misinterpret it). So now are you officially changing your statement that you DO have the total freedom to say what you wish/think ? If so, if you'll make the corrections to my signature page, I will gladly make the suggested changes to reflect your 'real' objectives and freedoms. That should be a big help, cause we sure don't anyone misunderstanding what you said. Shoulder shrugs, tongue in cheek and all that.

Why? Just because Kenneth Drew has no ability to interpret a perfectly clear statement is supposed to now reflect poorly on ME, Glenn? That's curious reasoning there. And, of course, the quote he's utilizing as a signature is a quote that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. But that built-in (and obvious) "humorous" element of that statement also went sailing right past Mr. Drew as well. that was also obviously uttered when I had my tongue planted in my cheek. So, in the future, you're going to tell us when you have tongue in cheek, and/or other mannerisms that we need to decipher what you 'really mean'? Well, you've already got your shrugging system working, so it shouldn't be too hard to add a few more symbols, statements etc. Maybe there's a modicon for tongue in cheek, shoulder shrugging, etc.

I guess to those who don't understand how the YouTube comments system works, that comment of mine might seem a bit contradictory. What I meant was.... I allow all comments to go through to my YouTube video pages automatically (sans any "moderation" on my part). But after then reading the allowed comments, I sometimes have to delete some of them (because of the pure filth that many of them contain). Ten-Four? So you do not allow comments without moderation. You only pretend you do?

You bet it does. But as long as you like it, go for it. I never said anything of the kind. And your new signature doesn't imply that either. What it implies is that I (an "LNer") don't have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness all day long and try to pass off such tommyrot as an open mind". That's the "freedom" I don't possess. And the fact I had to actually explain that to you says a lot about your ability to interpret things correctly, even though the quote in your signature is perfectly clear. Your exact quote was "I wish I had your total freedom" You have yet to tell us why you don't have freedom. If you don't have total freedom, there must be a constraint. You should be free to believe what you choose to believe, to believe what you think the evidence shows and to explain that evidence. But you don't have that freedom, you say. I do. I have all the freedom I need to state what I really believe. I don't have to say something different because I don't have freedom. If you think that me fighting for your freedom to state your mind makes me look bad, then I'll just take it that you're stating that because you don't have the total freedom to say what you really think.

Boy, that makes a whole lot of sense. ~large shrug~ You're gonna wear your shoulders out with all that shrugging. Do you have the freedom to stop shrugging if you desire? But just a few comments back, you took a myth and in about 2 sentences, turned it into one of 'your' facts. Anyone that can turn a myth into a fact in about two sentences should welcome more myths to feed their 'fact creating' machine. Right? ~small shrug~ added for emphasis.

Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor.... Bob Studebaker J.C. Day Marvin Johnson L.D. Montgomery All liars, Ken? You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all? Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.) BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~ BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~ You're welcome. Don't know if I would consider it advertisement, unless you're selling something, of course. And you think that makes me look bad? I'm not the one that said I don't have the freedom to think for myself.

I can sure agree with you on that, David. The "YouTube Comment" world is almost like a completely different universe. People say things there that I doubt they'd say to their worst enemy on any given day--ever. But for some crazy reason, I guess when people make comments on YouTube, they decide that all rules for decorum and decency have to be thrown out the window. It's really a remarkale phenomenon at times. And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. The CTers seem to like to gather at YouTube---for JFK stuff and my 9/11 videos too. The 9/11 gutter talk is even worse than the JFK talk. (Hard as that might be to believe.) But even with all the filth and "Von Pein is a shill and CIA agent" crap I see every day at YouTube, I should also point out that there are some very nice and non-offensive comments made quite often too. But the good ones are far outdistanced by the trash talkers. And I'm in a position to notice it more than other people might, since I allow comments without moderation on my JFK channel. But if I see certain words in any comments, I reach for the delete button asap. DVP, wouldl you re-state that so it makes sense? Do you allow comments without moderation, or do you use the delete button? Is a comment without moderation the same as a comment with a deletion?

Maybe you should try reading the testimony of these police officers--all of whom testified to seeing the bag in the SN before it was picked up off the floor.... Bob Studebaker J.C. Day Marvin Johnson L.D. Montgomery All liars, Ken? You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? Is there ANY crackpot conspiracy theory you don't embrace? Any at all? Try reading the last paragraph of CE3131, Ken.... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0423a.htm More lies, Ken? (The part about only a single PALMprint being unidentified, I mean.) BTW, Kenneth, thanks for the free advertisement via your new signature. It's an odd choice for a sig, though. Normally people have no desire to make themselves look bad. But I guess you're a different breed. ~shrug~ You believe in all the myths, don't you Ken? May as well, David, with the rapidity that you turn myths into facts.

FIVE Oswald prints in the "Nest" (total). And among those five, I'm including the two LHO prints on the paper bag too, because that bag was in the "Nest" as well (despite the fact no picture of it exists in the SN itself). All planted, Ken? You're making it up as you go along. You know very well there was no 'brown paper bag' ever found in the Snipers nest. It only turned up much later. The only fingerprints found in the nest belonged to Mac Wallace, care to explain that? If you're going to use photo's 'claimed' to have been soon after the shooting, explain how a rifle was fired from that window with those packages lying on the sill? Where is the 'brown paper bag', where is the lunch bag with chicken bones.. then tell me this is not a 're-creation' of the way the WC wants us to 'think' it was.

FIVE Oswald prints in the "Nest" (total). And among those five, I'm including the two LHO prints on the paper bag too, because that bag was in the "Nest" as well (despite the fact no picture of it exists in the SN itself). All planted, Ken? You're making it up as you go along. You know very well there was no 'brown paper bag' ever found in the Snipers nest. It only turned up much later. The only fingerprints found in the nest belonged to Mac Wallace, care to explain that?