Kenneth Drew

You saw no such TV footage, because no such film or video exists---and it never did exist. Kenneth is suffering from the same "conflated memory" problem that a woman had in a 1967 CBS-TV interview. In that interview, CBS stopped a woman on the street and she told us that she "just happened to be home at that time [when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63]...and I saw the whole thing on television". It was from observing "the whole thing on television" that the woman also stated in the same interview that it was her belief that it would have been impossible for just one man to have murdered the President by himself, and that Oswald, according to the same woman, was "working for the CIA". Of course, in reality, there is no news footage that shows "the whole thing" (i.e., the assassination in progress on Elm Street). So when the lady boldly claimed in 1967 that she was home and witnessed the "whole thing" on television, she is quite obviously mistaken. She has likely taken information she later heard about the CIA being a suspect in the assassination, and she has merged that theory together with her memory of being at home and watching Walter Cronkite or Frank McGee or Ron Cochran as those newsmen reported the bulletins of the shooting on 11/22/63. That's similar to what Kenneth Drew is now doing regarding the "Mauser" topic. He saw some footage on November 22 (possibly a film of the police holding rifles and shotguns outside the Depository; there was plenty of filmed footage showing cops with guns)....or Ken saw the various reporters saying (without confirmation) that the rifle found in the TSBD was a "Mauser" or a "6.5 Mauser" or perhaps even a "7.65 Mauser"....and then (years later) Ken heard Roger Craig's bald-faced lie about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle....and--voila!--the two events become merged together as one event in Ken Drew's mind. But I have collected almost every minute of available network news footage from 11/22/63, and I can guarantee everyone reading this post that there is no footage from that day that has anyone saying they saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that was found in the Book Depository. As for Roger Craig's tall tale..... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ifn0KxjZzn8/kHdMvTwPAZAJ Lol DVP " Kenneth is suffering from the same" and you're suffering from " you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about" and you said: "and I can guarantee everyone reading this post that there is no footage from that day that has anyone saying they saw the words "7.65 Mauser" I can say that's a safe bet, because I didn't see that either. So DVP, these details you're recalling from your memory are all 100% accurate, but since I saw something you don't agree with, I must be conflating my memory. Sure, go ahead and believe that. You know the film exists, you know at least 5 officers signed affidavits that it was a Mauser. I'd be willing to bet most police officers don't make mistakes on their affidavits. In fact, I'd bet most 'signed sworn affidavits' are taken in trials as positive proof. As for your link on Roger Craigs tall tale, all it contains is links to McAdams drivel. He's an even bigger joke than you are but I understand you know him well from your games in the Pigpen. Roger Craig never identified the rifle in any film I saw, he only pointed out that Weitman said it was a Mauser. Since every officer that was in the TSBD at that time signed an affidavit that it was a Mauser, some discredited nutter such as McAdams word otherwise is meaningless. But tell me why you want to argue about a rifle that had nothing to do with the JFK assassination anyhow, is it just to distract from the facts?

Robert, as I said, I'm not going to link you to something you've likely seen several times and just want to ignore. And I don't care what kind of rifle was found in the TSBD because none were ever fired from the 6th floor snipers nest on ll/22/63, so just what difference does it make what the conspirators planted. This is an example of the kind of crap the Nutters want the CTers to do is argue the details that DO NOT MATTER. As you well know, the rifle you claim was in the TSBD is NOT the same as the rifle in the FAKE BYP's and neither of them is the rifle alledgedly ordered by A Hidell from Kleins's. So, what difference does it make 'what kind of rifle did they find'? you said:" Excuse me for not peeing my pants in excitement." I'd sure hope you aren't so bent on thinking you've finally found something someone is right or wrong on that you are standing there holding your breath. Maybe you could be working on supplying some of those delicacies you keep promising us 'when you get time' between your plumbing jobs.

You saw no such TV footage, because no such film or video exists---and it never did exist. Kenneth is suffering from the same "conflated memory" problem that a woman had in a 1967 CBS-TV interview. In that interview, CBS stopped a woman on the street and she told us that she "just happened to be home at that time [when the assassination occurred on 11/22/63]...and I saw the whole thing on television". It was from observing "the whole thing on television" that the woman also stated in the same interview that it was her belief that it would have been impossible for just one man to have murdered the President by himself, and that Oswald, according to the same woman, was "working for the CIA". Of course, in reality, there is no news footage that shows "the whole thing" (i.e., the assassination in progress on Elm Street). So when the lady boldly claimed in 1967 that she was home and witnessed the "whole thing" on television, she is quite obviously mistaken. She has likely taken information she later heard about the CIA being a suspect in the assassination, and she has merged that theory together with her memory of being at home and watching Walter Cronkite or Frank McGee or Ron Cochran as those newsmen reported the bulletins of the shooting on 11/22/63. That's similar to what Kenneth Drew is now doing regarding the "Mauser" topic. He saw some footage on November 22 (possibly a film of the police holding rifles and shotguns outside the Depository; there was plenty of filmed footage showing cops with guns)....or Ken saw the various reporters saying (without confirmation) that the rifle found in the TSBD was a "Mauser" or a "6.5 Mauser" or perhaps even a "7.65 Mauser"....and then (years later) Ken heard Roger Craig's bald-faced lie about actually seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle....and--voila!--the two events become merged together as one event in Ken Drew's mind. But I have collected almost every minute of available network news footage from 11/22/63, and I can guarantee everyone reading this post that there is no footage from that day that has anyone saying they saw the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle that was found in the Book Depository. As for Roger Craig's tall tale..... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/ifn0KxjZzn8/kHdMvTwPAZAJ Lol DVP " Kenneth is suffering from the same" and you're suffering from " you don't know what the h*ll you're talking about" and you said: "and I can guarantee everyone reading this post that there is no footage from that day that has anyone saying they saw the words "7.65 Mauser" I can say that's a safe bet, because I didn't see that either. So DVP, these details you're recalling from your memory are all 100% accurate, but since I saw something you don't agree with, I must be conflating my memory. Sure, go ahead and believe that. You know the film exists, you know at least 5 officers signed affidavits that it was a Mauser. I'd be willing to bet most police officers don't make mistakes on their affidavits. In fact, I'd bet most 'signed sworn affidavits' are taken in trials as positive proof.

First, no I'm not going to post a link, there are many of them and I'm sure you've seen them. Apparently is different only in the sense that the only sound with the video was the man doing the video was telling what they were showing and saying. He said as they pointed to the writing on the rifle that it said Mauser. So, I'm quite sure that they had looked at the rifle and read what was on it and were demonstrating it for the cameraman. TV wasn't the same in 63 as it is today, they didn't carry cell phones with video and audio. Your statement of Roger Craig "Roger Craig stated in an interview that he looked at the rifle and, on the base of the barrel, read the following: "7.65 Mauser" is your statement. I didn't say that. Your statement: "Unfortunately for Craig, Mauser did not stamp any words or numbers on the base of the 7.65 Mauser barrel. All information was on the side of the receiver." is useless and meaningless. If I told you I looked at an automobile and saw the name Chevrolet on it and you then said that Chevrolet didn't put the name on the roof of the car would be an equivalent. I don't care where the word Mauser was written on the rifle, they pointed at 'the rifle' and said it said right there, Mauser. So it might have been on the slide bolt, trigger, trigger guard, stock, barrell or any other place and the meaning would be the same. So find fault with my statement, not what you thinkl about what someone else said. I said 'I saw them looking at the rifle and pointing to the rifle and saying that it said Mauser. Tell me why you think they would all gather together, discuss what type of rifle it was then find a 'expert' Seymore Weitzman and all look at the rifle and point to the rifle and say, "it says right there, Mauser" Do you really think that 'all' of them couldn't read the word correctly? Why would they then all go and sign an affidavit that it was a Mauser and then only change it after they had been intimidated by the Warren Commission. So, also, tell me what you saw happen there in the TSBD on 11/22/63? Was it, or was it not, similar to what I saw that day?

Interesting. But on the afternoon /evening of ll/22/63, I was watching tv coverage of the assassination and all the turmoil. I recall, myself, actually seeing them looking at a rifle and apparently reading directly off of it "Mauser". None of that is based on Roger Craig, it is based on what I saw with my own eyes and it's not likely, since I haven't changed my mind about it in over 50 years, that you or anyone else is going to change my mind about that. Now we can all 'assume' that two grown men holding up a rifle, polnting at writing on it and saying that it says Mauser could have not been proficient in reading or spelling, but I don't think that's likely. Yes, I have seen videos that show the same thing within the last 10 years that I saw over 50 years ago, and I know that several of the people that were in the TSBD that day signed sworn affidavits that it was a Mauser and that those same people later, after apparently a fairly good intimidation by 'someone' said they might have been mistaken that day. But I don't think that's likely. Now, I know that you know that one hell of a lot of testimony ;about that day got changed via the Warren Report, so to accept that quite a bit got changed about the rifle found there that day seems like a reasonable assumption on my part. So tell me what you saw on ll/22/63, on tv, that convinces you otherwise. Incidentally, since Roger Craig wouldn't change his ID of the rifle, he apparently died an early death by shooting himself with a rifle. Could be that's why so many 'agreed' to change their minds about what they had seen. Would you have changed yours under the correct intimidation.

What weighs against its likelihood for me are the two defective rounds. What are the odds of firing two conventional rounds, hit nothing but soft tissue, and neither exit? You are referring to the back shot that went no where and the throat shot? yes and that would also be from 2 different shooters. Would seem like odds would be against it

From the HSCA anaylsis of the cervical x-ray: <quote> On the film of the right side, taken post-autopsy, there are two small metallic densities in the region of the C7 right transverse process. These densities are felt to be artifact, partly because of their marked density, because there is a similar artifact overlying the body of C7, and because these metallic-like densities were not present on the previous, pre-autopsy film. Therefore, I assume that these are screen artifacts from debris present in the cassette at the time that this film was exposed.<quote off> Cliff, I think you summed it up well. Clearly he was shot in the back, from the angle, probably from high up on a building on Houston street. The bullet disappeared therefore there can be no proof of what firearm it was fired from or who fired the weapon. Some of the evidence(some fragments) indicates it might have been with a bullet similar to what Robert has said. He was also hit with some type of bullet in the throat from the front. No evidence of where that round went to, or ended up or what ever happened to it. It just disappeard.

Why? If you don't already know it, then you should do just a little basic research. Plenty of absolute proof of it.

Hi Bruce While they may not be the same rifle, the rifle found on the 6th floor and the rifle in the BYP's are both definitely either 6.5mm Carcano M91/38 short rifles or 7.35mm Carcano M38 short rifles. Robert when you discuss the 'rifle found on the 6th floor' you should specify if you're talking about the Mauser or the other one. It has been proven several times that at least 2 rifles were there that day. But I agree with Bruce, there is almost no likelihood that the rifle in the faked BYP was ever in the Back Yard and there is certainly no proof that a 6.5 Carcano was ever fired at JFK on Nov 22. There is no proof that any bullet from a 6.5 Carcano ever struck JFK on any day. It doesn't matter if LHO ever ordered a rifle, though there is certainly no proof that he did because there is also no proof he ever owned a rifle or fired a rifle in Dallas. Any circumstantial evidence has more circumstances that it is NOT likely than that it is. It's all part of the conspiracy smokescreen.

Robert, I've always heard that the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. I don't necessarily agree, but sometimes it does help bring out other points. First, note that Cliff said: "Why didn't this back wound round show up on x-ray?" I'm pointing out the word 'round' in there. So I don't think Cliff was questioning if there was a back wound, just what happened to the bullet. I would ask that same question, but give my answer as 'probably disappeared during autopsy or modification of the body prior to the autopsy'. I wouldn't argue the case either way.

We are all holding our breath for the next chapter. Is this mystery going to run all through the summer or will we know what happened to this mysterious bullet at the conclusion of this soliquy? Will your plumbing work tie you up all weekend or could you finish Chapter 2 by Sunday night? I hope you have a sense of humor.

Well, I'm kinda thinking that the preponderance of the evidence is going with. that he was, in fact, killed that day. And I fully expect that you are going to show us the clear evidence of that frangible bullet melting in his right lung. Please be sure to explain where the shot came from that entered at the 45 degree + or - angle. Oh, and what kind of weapon fired that bullet.

Robert, your 'assumptons' are as good as any other 'theories', but none of it is now or ever has been provable. The Warren Commission was only concerned with showing that LHO did it with one rifle and 3 bullets. That's all the 'evidence' they allowed in. I don't believe there is any evidence of your version of a frangible bullet in JFK's lung, there may be but since you didn't produce any, I'm guessing not. I've not seen any evidence from you as to where this bullet was fired from, with it's downward angle, I'm guessing you're going to say one of those building roofs that border on Houston, or maybe the fire escape from the Dal Tex, but in either case, there's not much evidence. I'm only throwing out theories I think you're eventually going to throw out but seem to be too wrapped up in your plumbing work to be able to get around to it.

I think your speculation is essentially correct, though of course I don't know either. I do find it hard to imagine that the conspirators would initially plan to blame a military-style ambush on one person. What I think they would do is "identify" one of the ambushers, which is why they spent so much time and effort setting up Oswald beforehand. (The unconfirmed story that some "lost" Oswald luggage was found at the Mexico City airport after the assassination would fit right into such a scenario.) What is harder to figure is who messed up. Who messed up? Probably no one. There was most likely a plan that LHO would flee the SBD and, as directed, go to the Texas Theatre where he would do one of two things, either meet a contact that would take him to leave the country and dump him into the Gulf, or engage in a shootout with the police, otherwise why would over 20 police officers go to the Theatre to arrest a guy that had only slipped in without paying . Hardly sounds like a felony. So many policemen converged, LHO just gave up. Did someone make a mistake? Only if they had that planned differently and the plan didn't work.

DVP I thought you said good night above. Yeah, after refusing to debate JIm several times, you decided you had to sooner or later. But he didn't bite.

Bye-bye, Kenny. You're obviously a lost cause. Lost in a wilderness of conspiracy dreck and myths. I hope you're able to swim free of all that crap eventually. Good luck to you. Well, I don't think you're going to have much luck getting out of the Pigpen with your buddy. But at least you're taking my advice to 'stop digging'

And I'll bet you think the SBT is the SBF, right? I can't see or think of any 'fact' you've presented, if i ever do, I'll be sure to let you know. I'm sure you know the WCR was all discredited at least 50 years ago and here you are, still pretending like there is something 'true' in it. It's rather humorous, your technique of quoting something as evidence from the Report and pretending as if it's factual. I'll bet you enjoying acknowledging CTers like DiEugenio, is that why you duck him when invited to debate him on the air? If you were sure of your position wouldn't you welcome the opportunity to show him up in a debate?

DVP here are the first two 'facts' you list on that site you linked above: "1.) Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963. 2.) Oswald owned the handgun that was shown to have been used in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit." First, note that they have quotation marks, Lord knows I don't want any credit for that demented thinking. But No.l You've never provided any proof at all that LHO owned the rifle 'supposedly' found on the 6th floor. In fact all the evidence you've shown is that A Hidell ordered a rifle and that a different rifle than what he ordered was shipped to him and that rifle was different from what was ordered and the rifle sent to him had no scope. So where was your proof again? 2. Oswald owned a revolver, Tippit was shot with an automatic. Oswald didn't have an automatic. Oswald was nowhere near where Tippit was shot. No witness identified Oswald. Uh, so what was your 'proof'? You don't need to respond to these , I've read your smoke and mirrors many times and have never believed it and am not going to start now.

It would be nice if you could learn to quote people properly. You didn't write most of your above response. Jim DiEugenio did. And yet you fail to cite him for any of the above words. Not even a quotation mark around Jim's quotes. It's not clear at all where Jimbo's quote ends and where your latest anti-DVP tirade begins, Ken. Very sloppy. Moreover, your DiEugenio example above is nothing but pure malarkey coming from a man (DiEugenio) who won't even admit that Oswald shot J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't get much worse than that in the "Denial" department.) Furthermore, in my rebuttal articles that I have written in response to the never-ending fantasies and crap promoted by Mr. DiEugenio, I have effectively destroyed all of his nonsensical arguments when it comes to the items of physical evidence connected with Oswald and the JFK case (such as the C2766 rifle and the revolver and the backyard photos and the bullets, etc.). I've amassed a 100-part series devoted to debunking DiEugenio's fantasies and non-stop misrepresentations. So just because Jimbo D. says something on CTKA, don't think that's where the argument ends. Because it certainly doesn't end there at all.... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html You're being ridiculous, and you know it. I have provided fact after fact to prove that Lee Oswald killed two people in Dallas in Nov. 1963. (See link below for tons of examples.) You just don't like those facts. It's as simple as that, Ken. Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com ---------- True I did forget to include quotation marks, but I linked to the source. I didn't claim it to be 'my observation'. I will edit and enclose the entirety of it in quote marks. Why should anyone admit that Oswald shot Tippit? There has never been any valid data/info proving that. It is more of the WildAss lies of the Warren Fab Shop. Tippit was shot with an automatic weapon, Oswald had a revolver, Tippit was shot at 1:06, Oswald was at his rooming house at 1:04. 9/10ths of a mile away. There were 2 shooters of Tippit, only one Oswald. Neither was described wearing the clothes Oswald was arrested in. Mr DiEugenio has embarrassed you so many times, I'm surprised you will even acknowledge him. The argument doesn't end there? Where does it end, the Pigpen? "and you know it. I have provided fact after fact to prove" LOL. fact? after fact? Prove? At least you have a sense of humor. I asked for an example of something you've proved but see you provided nothing. Stop digging.

Oh, so you think the Clark Panel DIDN'T really look at ANY of the "real" JFK autopsy photos or X-rays? Is that what you're suggesting, Kenneth? They merely were examining "fake" autopsy pictures, is that it? You might be on to something.

I haven't assessed their abilities. Maybe if they actually got to look at JFK's autopsy photos, they might see the truth.

And those many times I have been "shot down" would include....? Try to cite just one. "For example, Von Pein responded to the first part of my Reclaiming History series by questioning my analysis of whether or not Oswald could have ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that is in evidence today. I spent several paragraphs in part one of my critique showing that in view of all the evidence, it is highly unlikely that he could do so. (Click here for that review.) I also posed a serious question about the transaction: the mail order company sent him the wrong rifle. Both the length and the classification were wrong. Although Oswald ordered the 36-inch model classified as a carbine, the Commission says he received the 40-inch model classified as a short rifle. Further, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered that Klein's only placed scopes on the 36-inch model. Yet the 40-inch model in evidence has a scope on it. (Click here for that discussion.) Von Pein said he would admit all this," http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html And before you belabor the point, now that I submitted my proof, why don't you cite a time where you were actually correct on any fact. Just one.

Because when someone starts talking about a bullet passing through the throat from the back, my BS alarm sounds. There are no autopsy photos that show that a shot went through the throat from the rear, uh well, at least none of JFK's autopsy photos. But then, you know that, right?

DVP actually you first read the Bug's book in 03, right? About 4 years before it was published, right? And you have been shot down so many times on any factual matter you claim from the book that I'm surprised you are not ashamed to even mention the book again. Must have been visiting the pigpen again.

Well, Bob, all I can say is.... You are obviously incorrect in your analysis. Simple as that. Also.... The HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel had no problem with the bullet going clean through JFK's body. Nor did the autopsy doctors have any difficulty arriving at such a "thru-&-thru" conclusion (after Dr. Humes talked with Dr. Perry on the morning of November 23rd, that is). But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck. You think you know more than TWELVE different pathologists, Bob? Please enlighten me on WHY you think that. And here's another panel which concluded something that Robert Prudhomme thinks could have only resulted from "magic". So this brings the total number of doctors that Bob P. needs to ignore up to sixteen.... Quoting from the Clark Panel Report (emphasis added by DVP)..... "The other bullet struck the decedent's back at the right side of the base of the neck between the shoulder and spine and emerged from the front of his neck near the midline. The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found. There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds as indicated by subcutaneous emphysema and small metallic fragments on the X-rays and the contusion of the apex of the right lung and laceration of the trachea described in the Autopsy Report. In addition, any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck. The possibility that the path of the bullet through the neck might have been more satisfactorily explored by the insertion of a finger or probe was considered. Obviously the cutaneous wound in the back was too small to permit the insertion of a finger. The insertion of a metal probe would have carried the risk of creating a false passage, in part because of the changed relationship of muscles at the time of autopsy and in part because of the existence of postmortem rigidity. Although the precise path of the bullet could undoubtedly have been demonstrated by complete dissection of the soft tissue between the two cutaneous wounds, there is no reason to believe that the information disclosed thereby would alter significantly the conclusions expressed in this report." [END QUOTE.] These excerpts deserve a replay and lots of extra emphasis: "The possibility that this bullet might have followed a pathway other than one passing through the site of the tracheotomy wound was considered. No evidence for this was found." "Any path other than one between the two cutaneous wounds would almost surely have been intercepted by bone and the X-ray films show no bony damage in the thorax or neck." "There is a track between the two cutaneous wounds..." jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-1968-clark-panel-report.html --------- "But I'm supposed to believe a man by the name of Robert Prudhomme instead, while ignoring those TWELVE pathologists who said that a bullet DID go through JFK's back and neck." Yep, if you see a bullet path thru JFK's neck then it's your lying eyes that are deceiving you. You can't show any photo that shows the back shot anywhere except about 5 inches down to right of spine. Put on another one of those 6 sets of eyeglasses you just bought, then look again.