Kenneth Drew

I have held an undamped and near life-long fascination with JFK. While it's inception was purely assassination-focused, and as a fervent proponent any number of conspiracy theories, it has long-since morphed into my being predominantly focused on everything but the assassination - the man, his ideals, family, friends, administration, the good, the bad, the significant and trivial, alike.

My earliest memory of having anything more than a passing interest of JFK occurred when I was app. 11 years old, when I happened across a thick paperback book entitled, "High Treason". Standing in the middle of a Kmart, flipping through it's pages, I discovered the book to include several and rather disturbing post-mortem photos of the late President. As if I needed further incentive, other pages contained several rather sensational statements of "conspiracy", "murder", "cover-up" and the like. If it was meant to grab the casual reader, young as I was, it succeeded. I was both intrigued and curiously anxious to read the book, so as to answer the simple question of, "What happened?". I do not know how I convinced my mother to purchase the book for me, but she did, and I poured over it as soon as I got home, ultimately, reading it several times throughout those early years, and referencing it often.

Later, I caught a glimpse of Gerald Posner on the Today show one morning, before going off to school, and overheard his discussion about his new book, "Case Closed". I immediately scoffed and dismissed the very existence of any notion that Oswald acted alone, and that no conspiracy existed. Later, I got a copy of his book, read it, and recall having grave and pervasive doubts about my many, and to that point sincerely held, conspiratorial beliefs.

The issue remained in some fluctuation in my mind's eye over the next several years I wasn't sure what I believed, to be honest, and worse, it could not only change by the last article or book that I had read, but at times, even by the moment. For years, I held off on reading the Warren Commission Report. In my younger years, before we held the internet in our pockets, it was all-too-easy to avoid. In fact, I don't know how I could have gotten a copy of it, even had I wanted to, prior to the internet. Later, and after the internet became a staple of our lives (sometime around 2000-01, maybe?), and it was readily available, I still felt a pang of honest hesitation in reading it. For reasons unknown at the time, but which become clearer with the dual benefit of both age and hindsight, I now know that I put it off for so long, simply because I was afraid of what I might find, and worse, that it would all make sense, and that my own intellectual honesty would force me to sacrifice even the last vestiges of any possibility of my conspiratorial beliefs.

Now, unsurprisingly with the aid of hindsight, this is precisely what occurred.

I do not now believe that there has been one scintilla of any credible or empirical evidence of a conspiracy of any kind, in any direction, or which in any way sheds even a faint or whispered doubt on the singular and ultimate truth - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted entirely alone in the planning, execution, and assassination of JFK.

Despite my certainty, I remain sincerely open to the possibility of being wrong, and have neither qualms nor trouble in admitting where my own ignorance or mistaken beliefs have lead to an erroneous conclusion, when necessary. In fact, I would not only accept but welcome - any information which could effectively prove that some element of a conspiracy was involved, even to me, and in my own mind's eye.

But I do not believe that it does, and hence, do not hold my breath in waiting for it.

Having been a long-time lurker, I can say that I am impressed, oftentimes bordering on amazed, at both the depth and quality of your discussions, and the level of cumulative knowledge which so many members seem to share, and from either side of the debate, and all points in-between.

I will try to keep up, and hopefully contribute in some small way. Where I cannot, I will try to stay out of the way.

Thank you for allowing me to participate.

Wow a born again Lone Nutter.... how original. Every Lone Nutter I know was a CTer to begin with but got baptised and are born again. Now they're all going to Heaven. and All.....I mean 100% + All of them are open to ANY evidence that will open their minds to the REAL truth. Well Curtis, you don't get too many points for originality but I will give you one for BS.

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

Josephs has a clean-up crew behind the scenes, cleaning up his droppings. They clean it up, and then it looks as if the complaints are over nothing at all.

I and others have requested multiple times that his droppings be left in place so everyone can see what he is. The current idea that merely removing his droppings solves anything is entirely wrong-headed. It allows him to get away with anything he wants.

I don't believe you can link to anything of his that has been 'cleaned up'. I've been reading this thread as posted and I haven't seen one word disrespectful to any nationality. If you disagree, link to his comment that you consider to be offensive.

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

Vanessa, do you have an opinion as to why there are so many folks from Australia on most of the JFK sites? I've seen it on all I've been on. Seems as if we have more Aussies than we do Americans. Just curious.

I could have sworn I answered this.

would you link me to that answer, I haven't seen it.

Now David, resorting to national insults won't make your arguments any more persuasive.

If this is indicative of the rest of it, I don't think I'll bother reading any further:

Josephs states: While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September when Oswald was in New Orleans with Marina (who was 8 months pregnant) and his first child June.

What follows is a either a figment of my imagination or Josephs is maintaining his usual standard:

Now what, David? Go from claiming they never tried to explain it to... they invented the phone call above? I guess that will have to be it, You've got nothing else to fall back on.

Maybe it's just that you speak a different English down under?

While the article repeatedly claims that there is no indication that Oswald was in Wisconsin, it never even hints at why or who would be putting that name with DALLAS in mid September

Would you provide the source for this quote please and then show how it is contained in the article I refer to above... as I never mention anything about an FBI follow-up report... you going to offer the source of this report or do we have to just take your word?

When someone uses a noun "this article" followed by a pronoun, "it never hints at why or who" most people understand the sentence refers to the article which I posted in the essay. I'm glad you found an FBI report of a phone call from an unknown woman about an unknown man and unknown reasons... but the ARTICLE as I state, does not hint at this. Additionally, the article goes on to state that the woman at the Fox and Hound was told that she was not to say a word, "I was advised not to say anything" by the FBI.

And if we are just going to believe any phone call then your Radionics call from Oxnard and the Tippit call regarding Oswald's real relatives in NYC must also be accepted as authentic evidence... ok.. fine with me.

So you see, once again in your effort to find fault in work you barely comprehend you twist the meaning of the words to suit your purpose. You are once again wrong in your analysis of what is very simple to follow.

This is the Evidence as it was offered. I do not state that I or anyone believes Oswald was actually there yet even you have to admit that a random call from a unknown person owning up to writing "Lee Oswald Dallas, Texas" in Wisconsin on Sept 14th when Oswald lived in New Orleans seems a bit more than a simple prank. But since all we have are anonymous calls and that article I include the real article in the presentation as opoposed to some FBI explanation which may or may not have any further corroboration.

Harvey and Marina Oswald did not live in Dallas all that summer... but Lee did. How would these unknown people know to put DALLAS when our Oswald in only in Dallas from October 1962 thru April 1963 and then again from October 1963 on....

Nice try though Greg...

We Australians speak English as it is written by those who invented it - the English*. So I don't think there is any problem with our comprehension. If you've any problems with that you should take it up with the English.

*albeit with a distinctive accent.

Vanessa, would you point out where you think David was 'insulting' to Australians. I went back and read his comments and can't find anything addressed to anyone that I would think was meant as an insult.

I'm only talking to you, mate. not the whole country.

It is beyond you to see a problem with this strange little event... once again at a time when the FBI knows an Oswald is in one place and is somehow leaving evidence in another...

It remains beyond you to apply the history of deception the FBI enjoyed at that time and understand that an anonymous call was just as likely an FBI asset as anything else.

That the membership of most right or left groups were heavily filled with FBI assets that their activities were more orchestrated than occurring naturally.

You think the FBI just turned it off for a while related to the evidence of Oswald in places he was not known to have been and every single one of them is benign.

Is it that you cannot fathom that level of corruption from your POV so it's not possible? Yes Greg, the FBI was that corrupt and that free to be so.

I actually think the root problem here is that you still believe the FBI conducted a real investigation and was an honorable group.

Greg... you need to let that go. The FBI were architects of the conspiracy's cover-up by being the conduit for the evidence.

Now I am not saying that the FBI was covering for the fact that LEE or someone playing Lee was up there watching JFK as Nagell had predicted... but it remains very possible.

I can't put my faith in the evidence of the FBI - it has proven to be misleading and wrong at every turn. That you chose to is your right I guess...

At least now I feel there is no need to engage with you any longer... your arguments are all FBI pixie dust strung together by hope and faith...

So ok Greg, the anonymous caller explains it all... nice work everybody... time for beer

If that's the case David stop making broad-brush insults about people from downunder.

Not that hard is it? Or are you just trying to provoke a reaction?

Is that your apology btw?

Vanessa, do you have an opinion as to why there are so many folks from Australia on most of the JFK sites? I've seen it on all I've been on. Seems as if we have more Aussies than we do Americans. Just curious.

On Sunday, Nov 24, a drunk in a party of six saw a blank space in the guest book and filled it in with the name "Lee Oswald" - Dallas, Texas. If there had been no assassination, the same drunk would probably have written "Donald Duck c/- Disneyland" in that same blank space.

So on Nov 24th, after the assassination, this group just leafed thru the registry until they found a blank space in SEPT and wrote in Lee Oswald in a similar fashion as his real signature.

Is this you on Radionics again Parker? You give us grief for the basis of our conclusions and yet you will buy most anything the FBI says hook line and sinker ?

Guest books are for people to read through. That is their singular purpose. Some people - especially after a few drinks, when leafing through reading the entries, will insert some "funny" name into any blank space they happen to find.

How predictable you are - as I said, you will fall back on the FBI faking this - despite it being a far from unheard of occurrence - and your evidence to support this fall back position is just as predictable. A big fat zip.

HIlarious. Yep we all go around all the time writing in famous names in guest books. The only place I've ever even seen these type books is at visitors centers at state welcome stations. I've never seen one that had a lot of famous names written into empty spaces. Maybe we all need to do that. Especially write in some famous guys name that just died, or something. I mean, surely there's no way LH Oswald could have written it in, right?

IOW - between Nov 22 and Nov 30 someone had to contact the FBI and report the incident. And then those at the restaurant are told to keep quiet about this event that you now claim was innocuous.

If you had done the work on this you should have done, you'd know the answers. Here I am doing your work for you again.

The local cops found out about it on Nov 27 and immediately contacted the FBI. The FBI went straight out the remote Fox and Hound, confiscated the entry and had it examined. It was not Oswald's writing. Then on the 30th, the FBI got a tip from an anonymous caller on Nov 30 who explained that one of her drunken party made the entry in a blank space in the guest book. That's it. That's all there was to it, People do that kind of stuff. Get over it.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=5&tab=page

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10437&search=%22unknown_caller%22#relPageId=6&tab=page

The newspaper story was published on Nov 29 or 30 because it states the "assassination was a week ago Friday". Whatever the case, it went to press before the FBI made public anything about the final disposition of the episode.

Your attempt to paint the FBI telling the Fox and Hound employees not to talk about it as somehow "sinister" is exactly the kind of thing I expect from you and your loony friends. Hands up anyone here who was unaware it is standard law enforcement practice to ask people not to comment on something that is a matter of ongoing investigation.

Nicely done Greg... you got everything except who did it and why... and then we add in the call from the 30th and you assume it must be authentic - anonymous callers are usually so reliable - right?

So how did the signers of that book know to put Oswald in Dallas and how is it that the forged signature bears a striking resemblence to Oswald's actual signature down to the looped L and O?

Just a benign coincidence... That you wil believe anything and everything the FBI puts in print without corroboration is simply astounding...

How again does a group of nobodies even know about Lee Oswald let alone the problem you'll have with writing "Dallas" on Sept 14th.

By the way - I've dropped the name calling and am asking simple straigh forward questions... why do you suppose it was even important for the FBI to bother with something written in a book in Milwaukee

and when did you say the article was published - BEFORE the phone call. No chance someone called the "Milwaukee office" as a prank after reading the article and claimed anonymously it was her party and her friend...

the FBI simply believes whatever anyone might say when they call?

Never really looked at signatures in detail, but it's kinda clear that the person that signed A. Hidell was not the same one that signed Lee H Oswald. ee's different, H's way different ll's way different. Wonder which of the A Hidell's ordered the rifle?

Paul, I'm not sure Odio was that uncooperative after Fonzi had worked with her a bit. After all, she agreed to meet with and give testimony to the HSCA....and could have requested to be an anonymous witness

with protected testimony as others did...but she did not. It was only after the interview was so horribly mishandled - in a hotel room for heavens sake - that she became offended, frustrated and told Fonzi that although

she had been more than willing it was clear that they just didn't want to hear what she had to say. Very similar to Sandra Serrano in the RFK investigation.

I just wanted to make my own reasons for not believing so clear and I'll leave it at that.

" It was only after the interview was so horribly mishandled - in a hotel room for heavens sake - that she became offended, frustrated and told Fonzi that although she had been more than willing it was clear that they just didn't want to hear what she had to say. " Just more evidence that the Warren commission had an agenda and it was all about a Lone Nut.

It may be useful to consider that in the Spanish language, the first name "Lee" does not exist.

The closest one gets to the name "Lee" in Spanish is "Leon".

If one was speaking with Spanish-speakers, and one did not wish to continually take time to explain an uncommon first name like "Lee," one would quickly become accustomed to introducing oneself as "Leon" in Spanish company.

It was completely natural for Leopoldo (i.e. Loran Hall) to refer to OSWALD by the name, "Leon" when speaking in Spanish.

Furthermore, even though Silvia Odio did not identify Loran Hall and Larry Howard (or so said the FBI) as Leopoldo and Angelo, nevertheless -- for some completely unexplained reason -- the FBI picked up Loran Hall to question him about Silvia Odio.

Does anybody here know why?

Then, as history tells it, Loran Hall admitted his visit -- but claimed that William Seymour was his Americano companion.

When William Seymour denied it and produced an alibi, Loran Hall then recanted and said he never spoke to Silvia Odio.

Come on -- Loran Hall confessed -- what more do we want?

Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned.

Now, I believe that Loran Hall was Leopoldo, and that Silvia Odio did ID him, and the FBI stomped on that ID very hard.

On the other hand, if she really did refuse to ID Loran Hall and Larry Howard, then my guess is that Loran Hall was a menacing figure for her -- and had her telephone number -- and she was terrified of him. That was probably why she didn't (if she didn't) ID him.

It all fits, IMHO. Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove OSWALD from New Orleans to Mexico City (as they told Silvia Odio). Loran Hall chose, out of his macho moxy, to drop in on Silvia Odio and seek money and/or a date.

He wasn't her type. She turned them down flat, with grace and courage. But "Leopoldo" called her that weekend (probably seeking a date, as she said he was "fresh" to her). The fact that Loran Hall could reach out and touch Silvia Odio probably sent chills up her spine.

As Mexican Immigration records show (aside from the phony bus data that the WC, CIA, DFS produced) OSWALD entered and exited Mexico by "automobile." Silvia Odio told the TRUTH.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Now, to be fair to Silvia Odio, the WC attorneys told her point blank before taking her testimony, that if she tended to suggest that OSWALD had any "accomplices," that the WC would reject her story out of hand. She was warned." What? Are you suggesting the WC had an agenda? You mean that if a witness did not agree to only testify about what they wanted them to testify to that they might not even allow them to testify? Selective witnesses, who woulda thunk?

Your theory seems to be, the more unlikely something is to have happened, the greater the chance it did happen.

You mean like someone's tonsils growing back?

As I have posted previous, at the time Oswald had his operation, he was under 8 and the norm was for partial removal only. The biggest risk to regrowth was to kids under 8 (when tonsils are more or less fully grown) and only partially removed. Nothing remotely unlikely about them growing back in his case.

Nice try.

Got anything on topic?

I have never researched 'tonsils growing back', but I'm almost the same age as LHO was and grew up in the era, and I have never, not once in my lifetime, have i heard of 'tonsils growing back'. Is this a rumor that the Warren Commission started or where did it originate? And also, I've never heard of 'partial removal'.

David,

I've been over this before, but perhaps not with you. Steven Witt came along at a perfect moment, as the HSCA was concentrating on the more sensational aspects of critical research (for instance, the three tramps). The televised hearings with Witt were a circus. The most memorable moment came when the umbrella "accidentally" opened and Chairman Louis Stokes could joke about not pointing it at him, in a clear derisive reference to theories that had suggested the Umbrella Man had fired a dart-like weapon.

Witt's rationale for being in Dealey Plaza with an open umbrella was about as believable as any other element of the official story, I suppose. I doubt that many citizens of Dallas, or Americans in general, would have caught his obscure "protest" against Neville Chamberlain's politics a quarter century earlier. It's even less likely that JFK would have recognized an open umbrella as something connecting him to a long-dead British politician.

If you ever read The Continuing Inquiry you know that little monthly periodical covered Witt's story in depth. As the internet wasn't born yet, and the mainstream media wasn't about to do anything other than regurgitate the official story, TCI was about the only independent source of regular information about the assassination at that time. Witt's testimony didn't match the filmed actions of TUM. And there is no innocent explanation- with or without Neville Chamberlain- that explains TUM's casual attitude after the shooting, and we still don't know just who his dark-complexioned companion was.

The Umbrella Man stood out like a sore thumb that day, and I think it's pretty obvious he wasn't there to stage a political protest that even surviving members of Neville Chamberlan's family would fail to understand. I don't know about the dentist you refer to, but TUM and his companion should have been among the first witnesses questioned by the authorities. The fact that they weren't even identified is just another indictment of the "investigation" into this case.

"identifying the Umbrella Man would not further the story of the Lone Nut, which was, after all, the 'objective' of the WCR

David, those are some good comments about the 'outright lies'. The reason I think it is so useless to comment on 'outright lies' is that there is so little in the WC that is based on truth, that leaves 'almost everything' else to be commented on. One simple example, look at your discussion above about the angle of the shots from the TSBD. We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the snipers nest, so any comments on angles are all hypothesis or just plain fabrication. Another discussion, about LHO ordering a rifle. There is clearly NO evidence that LHO ordered a rifle. Just because there was 'supposedly' evidence that LHO used the alias A HIdell, there is no proof that he actually did. But shipment of a rifle ordered by an unknown, paid for by someone with a money order mailed from somewhere that LHO did not frequent and would have been way out of the way for him to have been there during a time when the timeclock at his employers showed that he was on the job far away from the post office. And then to try to prove that the rifle, initially a Mauser, later changed to a Carcano that was not the same carcano that was in the photos that were faked as evidence that LHO really did own a Carcano by using a totally different rifle as that proof. In other words, Warren Report is a Keystone Kops Kaper in writing. They were all thumbs and got little or nothing right. I know of no Nutter that has ever proven any part of the Lone Nut scenario.

Agree of course Kenneth - and I hope to post that article on CTKA re: the rifle and pistol within the next couple weeks

One needs to ask about the evidence related to a shot from that spot...

The three men closest to this shot were Norman, Williams and Jarman who, by the window beneath the 6th floor were no more than 15 feet from the open muzzle of that rifle - if we assume it was there.

The easiest of searches finds that a rfiel of that sort produces about 150 dB's at the muzzle and about 120-140 dB at 15 feet.

This is enough to deafen someone for a short term at least and produce serious ringing in the ears.... and that would be one of the shots, not three.

"thought it came from above"

"believe it came from above"

Mr. JARMAN - Hank said, Harold Norman, rather, said that he thought the shots had came from above us

Mr. NORMAN - but I know I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and then another shot and I believe Jarman or someone told me, he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President,"

I think I made a statement "It is someone shooting at the President, and I believe it came from up above us."

but I know I heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something sounded like the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the rifle, it sounded as though it was to me"

We are expected to believe that these men were doubtful about where the shots came from and that they could hear shells clinking and a bolt working...

That simply stretches the bounds of common sense and logic a bit too far David... unless there was little if any sound from a silenced weapon.. Euins does make a convincing claim of seeing a barrel protruding and firing...

One thing is for sure though, the C2766 found on that floor and any shots fired have nothing to do with each other.

--------------------------------------

The Evidence IS the Conspiracy. The WCR & HSCA is the government's way of wrapping it up as an eternal EFF EWE for all of history to marvel at the blatant manner the US people were and remain fooled about the workings of the world around them.

DVP argues in a vacuum of 1950's Leave it to Beaver optimism and collective ignorance. It's cute and all, but terribly antiquated and hopelessly naive.

"DVP argues in a vacuum of 1950's Leave it to Beaver optimism and collective ignorance." While I'm not sure it's 'collective ignorance', it may be more like, planned mis-direction, but it may well actually be just ignorance.

Shells clinking? That's the 3 that were lined up lying adjacent to each other, one with a 'bent' edge that could not possibly have just been fired. And as you pointed out, they heard this clinking after having just been deafened with 3 shots fired 15 feet from their ears, LOL.

The Warren Comm Report was not a Report, it was 'guidelines for deception'.

We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the sniper's nest...

This is called "TOTAL DENIAL", folks. There simply is no other way to describe it.

Kenneth HAS to know (or he SHOULD know) about all of the various SEPARATE pieces of evidence AND witness testimony that all indicate someone WAS firing rifle bullets at President Kennedy from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building located at 411 Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, USA, on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD. Kenny HAS to know that.

And yet we're treated to this brilliant and Oscar-winning quote from Louisiana's own Kenneth Drew....

"We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the sniper's nest."

After reading such claptrap, about the only thing a sensible person can do is just roll their eyes, smile a little half-smile, and then walk away in complete bewilderment by what they have just heard.

That's what I'm going to do now ....

And I notice you still can not refer us to any absolute proof of what you said, just throw it out, all smoke screen. And it doesn't surprise me that you walk around with your eyes rolling, better watch for the slop holes in the Pigpen.

David Josephs,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

-------------

AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

I guess LHO was supposed to be walking around outside his house with the rifle for hours, since he didn't have a car to drive anywhere

I can't understand anyone believing anything in the WCR. So many things are known to be outright lies and fabrications. Once you know the WC itself fabricated evidence then you know that the rest was very selectively chosen just to amplify their side. Such as the SBT. Everyone except DVP and his pigpen playmate are still laughing at that one.

Can you please site the "outright lies" contained in the WCR, or should your simply alleging it suffice?

And who is this "pigpen" guy?

I'd like to address your question Curtis...

There are so many it's almost hard to narrow it down to just posting a few... but these are some of the most egregious

Here's the ryberg/ford/bullet hole composite to show how they lied about the placement of the entry wound on the back - this is an "outright lie"

Both the FBI and Secret Service place the final shot 40 feet further down Elm than the conclusions of the WCR allow.

Z313 is acknowledged as the final shot.

This is WCD298's measurements for where the limo was when each of the three shots were fired... with an inset of the location with a string back to the 6th floor... That's 40 feet past z313

Seems to me Z313 as the last shot head shot is an "outright lie" based on their investigations and results

The SS gives us this: Z313 at 4+65 is not the same as placing the last shot within 4 feet of 5+00, 35 feet down Elm.

And finally Curtis - the 12th of the conclusions of the WCR states:

12. (f) Within these limitations, however, the Commission finds

that the (SS) agents most immediately responsible for the President’s

safety reacted promptly at the time the shots were fired from the TSBD.

I would say that Greer and Kellerman are the SS agents most responsible for JFK's safety... here they are reacting "promptly" at the time of the shots.

At one if not two shots had already been fired - So Greer slows down, and turns to stare at JFK as his head is blown off

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to see anything of President Kennedy as you glanced to the rear?

Mr. GREER. No, sir; I didn't see anything of the President, I didn't look, I wasn't far enough around to see the President.

uh, right.

David, those are some good comments about the 'outright lies'. The reason I think it is so useless to comment on 'outright lies' is that there is so little in the WC that is based on truth, that leaves 'almost everything' else to be commented on. One simple example, look at your discussion above about the angle of the shots from the TSBD. We all know that there is absolutely no evidence of any shot having been fired from the snipers nest, so any comments on angles are all hypothesis or just plain fabrication. Another discussion, about LHO ordering a rifle. There is clearly NO evidence that LHO ordered a rifle. Just because there was 'supposedly' evidence that LHO used the alias A HIdell, there is no proof that he actually did. But shipment of a rifle ordered by an unknown, paid for by someone with a money order mailed from somewhere that LHO did not frequent and would have been way out of the way for him to have been there during a time when the timeclock at his employers showed that he was on the job far away from the post office. And then to try to prove that the rifle, initially a Mauser, later changed to a Carcano that was not the same carcano that was in the photos that were faked as evidence that LHO really did own a Carcano by using a totally different rifle as that proof. In other words, Warren Report is a Keystone Kops Kaper in writing. They were all thumbs and got little or nothing right. I know of no Nutter that has ever proven any part of the Lone Nut scenario.

Was Harry Livingstone that despised or something?

Thoughts (if you have them)?

Hi Vince:

I knew Harry fairly well over a number of years. In fact he mentions me in one of his books. My impression is that he was motivated by a strong animosity to David Lifton, and Lifton's (perfectly logical) theory that JFK's body was altered.

My problem with Harry is pretty much the same problem I have with the entire research community: In Killing Kennedy he writes,

"It doesn't matter whether Oswald was innocent or guilty. It doesn't even matter if he was part of the conspiracy."

I see much the same attitude here and everywhere else among JFK researchers. A lack of moral clarity is the reason why the JFK research community has been going nowhere.

Lee Oswald was innocent, but nobody cares.

That last sentence is mostly true, The Warren Commission and News media did such a good job of selling the Lone Nut scenario that it quickly became common belief, much as the reality that at least 50% of the population can't name the vice president. Once that was sold, no one cared if it were true or not except some people that actually began looking into the facts. Anyone that actually saw much of the news coverage the first 3 days after the assassination knew when the story started coming out that much that was revealed didn't fit with the known facts. There really was a Mauser found in the TSBD that day, for example, he really was shot in the throat, he really was shot from behind the grassy knoll. All this doesn't fit with the facts as put out by the WC, but no one cared, as far as the general public is concerned, LHO is the Lone Nut.

I suspect I read High Treason back then, I read everything that came out, but I don't recall anything novel about it or if it revealed any new facts back then.

David Josephs,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

-------------

AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

I guess LHO was supposed to be walking around outside his house with the rifle for hours, since he didn't have a car to drive anywhere

I can't understand anyone believing anything in the WCR. So many things are known to be outright lies and fabrications. Once you know the WC itself fabricated evidence then you know that the rest was very selectively chosen just to amplify their side. Such as the SBT. Everyone except DVP and his pigpen playmate are still laughing at that one.

Can you please site the "outright lies" contained in the WCR, or should your simply alleging it suffice?

And who is this "pigpen" guy?

"Can you please site the "outright lies" contained in the WCR," If you have to ask, you haven't read any of it. Check it out.

"Pigpen guy" what do you mean?

DVP,

If there was a conspiracy to kill JFK (that's just an assumption I ask you to make for discussion purposes), do you believe the conspirators would be sophisticated individuals?

I know you don't believe in a conspiracy. That's fine by me. I'm just asking your opinion based on a given assumption.

In such a situation, I would lean toward the conspirators having at least a fairly decent amount of "sophistication".

And if that had been the case, I certainly cannot envision (for even a moment) a group of plotters planning the assassination the way most Internet CTers think it was planned (and the way Oliver Stone thinks it was planned too) --- i.e., a plot that requires three gunmen to fire up to six shots at JFK while also attempting to frame a single patsy named Oswald in the TSBD. That type of pre-planning isn't something any sane plotter would have considered. It's suicide. Not to mention, just plain dumb (as well as wholly unnecessary overkill).

So not only do you shill for the WCR, you don't know the common position of most CTer's either. " It's suicide." Are you saying you think the conspirators likely included JFK committing suicide. Hey, let's go with that. It must be in the WCR for you to think of it.

David J.,

I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

And yet you just gave a detailed account of the detective Brown situation. One you are totally ignorant of. Well, at least you're predictable.

I was informed about it in greater detail by Gary Mack in his e-mails to me in the last two days. Haven't you been following the thread progression at all?

I knew very little about the "Detective Brown" re-creation pictures until Gary e-mailed me all kinds of excellent information yesterday and today (which I have posted in this thread). And then I looked up a couple things myself, including the KDFW videos and the Fritz testimony that I posted earlier.

That's how my "total ignorance" could be eradicated in just 48 hours.

Does that do it for you, Ken? Or is further explanation required, utilizing charts and graphs and a blackboard?

Are you admitting that you were 100% ignorant and are now less than that? maybe only 99.8? Seems like a small insignificant move. Is there a reason Mack has to have a shill?

David J.,

I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

And yet you just gave a detailed account of the detective Brown situation. One you are totally ignorant of. Well, at least you're predictable.

I was informed about it in greater detail by Gary Mack in his e-mails to me in the last two days. Haven't you been following the thread progression at all?

I knew very little about the "Detective Brown" re-creation pictures until Gary e-mailed me all kinds of excellent information yesterday and today (which I have posted in this thread). And then I looked up a couple things myself, including the KDFW videos and the Fritz testimony that I posted earlier.

That's how my "total ignorance" could be eradicated in just 48 hours.

Does that do it for you, Ken? Or is further explanation required, utilizing charts and graphs and a blackboard?

We know that we can't believe Gary Mack's version because you are quoting him. You know very well he won't post to defend his own changing often position, badge man and all.

Let me edit this at the request of Gary Mack: He objects to me saying his position on Badge Man has changed, he says he has been consistent: Here is his statement relative to Badge man: " I can, however, say that I think it's a photo of a gunman." I will accept that he still can say: " I can, however, say that I think it's a photo of a gunman." Thanks for the correction Gary.

David J.,

I plead total ignorance on the "Detective Brown" matter. I haven't the slightest idea what it's all about.

And yet you just gave a detailed account of the detective Brown situation. One you are totally ignorant of. Well, at least you're predictable.

One of your disciples, Dave?

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M."

Hi, Robert. I have lurked for a bit, and appreciate your posts.

I saw the new member post while lurking today, submitted the necessary email containing the requisite information, and was approved a few hours later. I assure you that any significance of timing is purely coincidental.

Finally, I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding a rifle, just as Marina testified under oath that she had taken.

If you have any evidence, beyond the aforementioned and anecdotal, please present it, as I'd love to know and consider it.

Thanks, again, for the welcome.

"I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald," You don't 'see'? No you don't, not if you see a picture of LHO standing anywhere.

Kenneth, do you think that the BY photos are fake?

Do you think that they are obviously faked?

Do you think they would even have looked obviously faked in 1963? What about 1976?

If you answered "Yes" to each question...how then do you explain that both the WC and the HSCA each determined that they were not only authentic, but untouched and unedited?

Was the HSCA in on the conspiracy, too?

And how then do you explain that Marina herself admitted to having taken the photographs?

Was Marina in on a conspiracy, as well?

Sincere questions, as I'm curious as to how you navigate these rather serious obstacles to holding a belief that the photos were faked / edited.

Curtis, I'm going to do something that Nutters don't do. l'm going to answer your questions. As a practice, Nutters such as DVP usually show up and throw out a ridiculous statement that they know all CTers will disagree with, then won't answer anything and just reappear with more distractions.

Anyhow, here are the answers:

Fake? absolutely created out of whole cloth. A head put on a body and then put onto the picture of the gate. There was no human in the photo when the photo of the gate was taken.

Obviously faked? Not sure what that means, but could a moron recognize that they're faked. Yes.

1963, 76? Are morons smarter today than in those years? The first time I saw them, whenever that was, it was obvious. But then I'm not a moron.

How do i explain the WC and HSCA? How do you explain DVP? same deal. WC is easy to explain, HSCA was way too late and had waaaayy too much misinformation.

HSCA in on conspiracy too? Couldn't have been, conspiracy was in 1960-63 timeframe.

Marina was told she was scheduled to return to Russia unless she cooperated. She co-operated. Wouldn't you?

Was Marina in on conspiracy? Only a tool, just as LHO was.

I don't believe the photos were edited, depending on terminology. I think they were 'created'.

I think the photos are totally irrelevant except that they show that LHO was the Patsy. Where they failed was in doing such a poor job, such as using the wrong rifle, since the rifle in the artwork is not the rifle that is claimed was used in the assassination, except has never been shown to ever have fired a shot. The creators knew they were going to be controlling the investigation and could make it work out however they wanted it to. They didn't count on LHO surviving the 22nd. That messed up their plans.

David Josephs,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

-------------

AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

I guess LHO was supposed to be walking around outside his house with the rifle for hours, since he didn't have a car to drive anywhere

I can't understand anyone believing anything in the WCR. So many things are known to be outright lies and fabrications. Once you know the WC itself fabricated evidence then you know that the rest was very selectively chosen just to amplify their side. Such as the SBT. Everyone except DVP and his pigpen playmate are still laughing at that one.

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support.

More hilarity from Bob Prudhomme. Now he sees a conspiracy (of sorts) connected with the "new" Edu. Forum member, Curtis Berkley. Bob's use of quotation marks around the word "new" means, of course, that Bobby doesn't believe for a second that Curtis Berkley is using his real identity. Such paranoid behavior is, of course, par for the course among Internet CTers. It's behavior that should certainly be frowned upon by the owners of this moderated forum, however. Bob might as well just come out and call Curtis a xxxx. And on Curtis' first day here too. Isn't that special?

Plus, Bob thinks things have gotten "a bit sticky" with respect to the preposterous "fake backyard photos" topic in this thread. Again, hilarious.

Fake photos, eh? It certainly shouldn't surprise anyone that DVP sees nothing wrong with the fake photos, he even thinks he has a photo of a recreation. Well, he doesn't that 'supposed recreation' is so far from the original fake, that no one would suspect it's 'supposed' to be a recreation. There are few similarities in the photos and tons of differences. But then when you've screwed up the fake one to start with, that makes it harder to try to duplicate. I hope this is not typical of our US intelligence services photo abilities.

Curtis your profile info is very interesting, especially your interesting experiences and hobbies. We also don't have many from your location.

One of your disciples, Dave?

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M."

Hi, Robert. I have lurked for a bit, and appreciate your posts.

I saw the new member post while lurking today, submitted the necessary email containing the requisite information, and was approved a few hours later. I assure you that any significance of timing is purely coincidental.

Finally, I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding a rifle, just as Marina testified under oath that she had taken.

If you have any evidence, beyond the aforementioned and anecdotal, please present it, as I'd love to know and consider it.

Thanks, again, for the welcome.

"I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald," You don't 'see'? No you don't, not if you see a picture of LHO standing anywhere.

Bob,

I don't know Curtis. I don't think I've talked to him before (but I could be wrong about that; I've talked to many people about this case over the years). But, anyway, it's nice to see someone else (besides me) with some common sense posting at this forum.

So you're not used to being around people with common sense DVP? That's no surprise. Nutters of a feather................