Kenneth Drew

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/jfk-back-wound-location.html

You want to 'prove' the SBTheory is fact and you still don't even know where the shot in the back entered? You're still arguing that it was in or near the neck when there has 'never' been any evidence of that.

Oswald never had a gun.

That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die the agonizing death it deserves (just like dozens of other such conspiracy-oriented myths and fairy tales).

The truth is, of course, that Lee Harvey Oswald's purchase and ownership of Carcano Rifle #C2766 and Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 have been established and proven beyond all possible reasonable doubt (and in many different ways, to boot), as I demonstrate at the links below....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

""That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die" As you well know, the major conspiracy theory about the assassination is the WCR. We all know that 'a' rifle was ordered by A Hidell. We also know that 'the rifle' ordered by him is not the rifle that was used as the plant in the SBD. It was similar, but distinctlvely different.

"Oswald's bullet" should be more accurately referred to as Jack Ruby's bullet. He's the one that delivered it to Parkland.

Several probs with your links there DVP, one thing is that they all refer to guns bought by A Hidell. Sure the WC tried to link LHO with AH, but we all know that didn't work, anymore so than that the LHO in Mexico City was actually LHO. I hope you have figured out by now that the picture of someone with LHO's head attached to it holding a rifle is a total forgery. They should have used better forgers back then, that's a fairly pathetic amateurish job on that photo. For some reason, you seem to be inclined to take all the WC claptrap as gospel. Are you shopping for any ocean front property?

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.

So you don't think his brains being blown out were significant?

John Connally had his brains blown out in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963? Gee, that's news to me.

My comment above about frame 227 has nothing to do with John Kennedy having his brains blown out. I was focusing exclusively on Connally's reactions in the pre-Z227 frames of the Zapruder Film when I made that statement. The discussion that James Gordon and I were having had nothing at all to do with the fatal shot to JFK's head.

Do you need better reading glasses, Kenneth? (I just bought half-a-dozen extra pairs last month for a really good low price. You can have a pair if you need them.)

LOL, DVP, try to keep up. You jump to conclusions before you're seen the evidence. Please provide the quote where I said Connally had his brains blown out, ever.

"Do you need better reading glasses, Kenneth? (I just bought half-a-dozen extra pairs last month for a really good low price." oh, so that's your problem? you can't see?

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.

So you don't think his brains being blown out were significant?

John Connally had his brains blown out in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963? Gee, that's news to me.

My comment above about frame 227 has nothing to do with John Kennedy having his brains blown out. I was focusing exclusively on Connally's reactions in the pre-Z227 frames of the Zapruder Film when I made that statement. The discussion that James Gordon and I were having had nothing at all to do with the fatal shot to JFK's head.

Do you need better reading glasses, Kenneth? (I just bought half-a-dozen extra pairs last month for a really good low price. You can have a pair if you need them.)

LOL, DVP, try to keep up. You jump to conclusions before you're seen the evidence. Please provide the quote where I said Connally had his brains blown out, ever.

Kenneth,

I assume you were thinking about 327 as opposed to 227?

James

Actually I was referring to 'it's all over and done', not to when Connally was hit. Clearly DVP thinks Connally was hit at a time other than what the evidence shows, so his opinion of when it's all over and done is not particularly significant.

You do know that the Zapruder film, which you are positive hasn't been altered[,] shows that Brennan was not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shooting. Right?

And so you think we can actually SEE Howard Brennan throughout the ENTIRE Zapruder Film? Is that it, Kenneth?

You'd better go and have another look at the Z-Film, because the last frame where Brennan is visible in the film is Z207 or Z208, which is more than 100 frames before the head shot.

This is embarrassing to even have to respond to such provably wrong garbage.

But the person who should be even more embarrassed is Kenneth Drew, for even suggesting that the Zapruder Film provides proof that Howard Brennan was not looking at the Book Depository "at the time of the shooting".

Brennan's testimony is quite clear -- he saw the TSBD gunman fire the LAST shot at the President....

"I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63 Affidavit

And Brennan said the same thing in his Warren Commission testimony.

Smoke and mirrors my good man. Do we care about what he said some days later vs what we can see with our eyes?

This is embarrassing

It's not my fault that you continually are embarrassed at what you say and do.

But James....

Once we get to the blurry frame 227, it's all over with anyway. I.E., Connally's already been hit and he has ALREADY reacted back there in the clearer frames (Z224-225-226).

So what makes the difference whether Z227 is clear or not? The cat's already out of the bag (so to speak). Connally's already been wounded prior to Z227, and he is visibly REACTING to being hit by the bullet in the clearer frames (Z224-226).

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.

So you can have Z227. I sure as heck don't need that frame to prove my point regarding John Connally's reactions. Because it's all over and done with by Z226.

So you don't think his brains being blown out were significant?

Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

He was until recently...

"Until recently"? You mean Oswald was in the lunchroom until just last week (or maybe last night)? That's amazing.

Since Truly and Baker both saw him there at that time.

They didn't see Oswald in the lunchroom at exactly 12:30. They saw him there a couple of minutes later after Oswald shot the President from the sixth floor and then hurried down the back stairs.

And to pre-empt your next argument, Vickie Adams' testimony doesn't pave the way for Oswald's innocence either. Here's why -----> jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-743.html

It's funny to note that the conspiracy theorists don't think Lee Oswald had a prayer of getting from the sixth floor to the second floor of the Book Depository in 90 seconds, and yet those same conspiracists don't have any problem at all believing that the two women (Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles--wearing high heels too) could go from the 4th floor to the 1st floor in just 60 seconds.

And the difference in the distance travelled is just one floor (with Oswald needing to travel down four flights--from 6 to 2--while the girls need to go down three flights--from 4 to 1).

I guess the CTers just can't believe that Oswald could have traversed that ONE extra flight of stairs (and hid the rifle near the stairs) in the 30 seconds that separates LHO's time from the time the CTers like for the girls so much (1 minute flat).

Ironic, huh?

Have you now found out that he was somewhere else? Oh, maybe you think he was in the Dal Tex building?

No, he wasn't in the Dal-Tex. He was just where Howard Brennan saw him---on the sixth floor of the Depository firing a rifle at President Kennedy.

You do know that the Zapruder film, which you are positive hasn't been altered shows that Brennan was not looking up at the TSBD at the time of the shooting. Right?

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report) but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that gave them a semblance of factual and legal validity.

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity?

Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?

I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action.

MV

May 13, 2015

7:57 AM PDT

Santa Monica, California

Mark,

You ask “who’s them”?

To clarify, I have reworded that paragraph—written rather hurriedly, and very late at night—and perhaps you will now understand the point I was making.

With regard to those who made the various discoveries of “the evidence” on the sixth floor, I do not now maintain (and never have said or implied) that the ordinary officers at the lower levels of the Dallas Police Department ‘food chain’ --ordinary uniformed officers in the patrol division--were involved in any plot.

I don’t believe that today, and never did. However, its important to understand the dividing line between those who are the deceivers, and those who are deceived.

The chief exception I would make to the above statement pertains to the clique of motorcycle officers who rode escort to the presidential limousine; but that is a separate topic.

What I have believed—and maintained for decades (see Best Evidence)—is that in a scheme in which the autopsy was falsified (the purpose being in effect to “change the diagram of the shooting,”) then the investigation at the Texas School Book Depository (and the “discovery” of the sniper’s nest) more or less resembles a scavenger hunt designed by those who engineered this deception.

When an officer searching the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD sees the butt of a rifle protruding from amongst some cartons and says (in effect) “Hey, over here! I found it!”, he is not in any way involved in a conspiracy. He’s simply doing his job.

Personal Motive?

Your statement attempting to attribute to me a personal motive (“to inflate your own importance”) by writing the post I did is silly and way off point. Oswald’s apprehension at the Texas Theater is arguably legitimate since police were looking for a suspect who ran away from the Tippit murder scene, but –if you know the record—then you should be aware that Oswald was not charged with the crime of JFK's murder until 11:26 p.m. (12:26 p.m. Eastern time), after the FBI agents had left the Bethesda morgue and the autopsy was essentially completed, and after Humes had already articulated—in front of them—his original “conclusions” about the autopsy: that JFK was struck twice from behind. (I stress this point in Best Evidence).

Perhaps you are unaware of the time sequence, but these details are critical in understanding the chronology of the unfolding sequence of events and the public statements by the Dallas Police Chief that Oswald’s rifle was identified as the murder weapon.

The Time Sequence (re the "ballistic match" between alleged murder weapon and retrieved bullets)

Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case.

Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon.

An Incorrect Belief About Oswald’s Whereabouts. . .

Undoubtedly the most bizarre part of your post is your statement that Oswald “was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting.”

Is that what you believe today, in 2015?

I hope you are aware that this has been thoroughly analyzed, dissected and refuted decades ago.

Yes, there is a resemblance between the “man in the doorway” and Oswald, and back in the mid-sixties, I used to wonder about that. But then came my work --as "researcher"--on the film Executive Action in 1973.

1973: Executive Action (and the discovery of film footage showing Oswald and Lovelady in the same fame)

As researcher on Executive Action (see the film credits), I ordered whatever films were available from the major New York City film libraries. One day, watching the footage of Oswald’s arrival at the DPD under police escort, I was rather astonished to see Oswald being marched right past Billy Lovelady, who was seated in one of the rooms at the DPD. I called over other members of the production team—notably, Ivan Dryer, the film editor—and we all watched the footage. Clearly, the shirts both men were wearing were similar; and there was even a similarity when photographed from this or that angle, but Oswald and Lovelady were two different people; and they were certainly not “twins.”

I made arrangements to make 35mm slides of those frames, and subsequently showed them to senior members of the HSCA staff in January 1977. (See the memos presently available at NARA). Robert Groden was then tasked—among other things—with following up.

He flew to Colorado, photographed Billy Lovelady in the shirt he was actually wearing that day (not the striped shirt which was an FBI mistake); questioned him, etc.--and it was established beyond any doubt that the man in the doorway was Lovelady.

I am not citing the above to ‘inflate” myself, Mark. I am citing the above to establish that you are dead wrong if your beliefs about the Kennedy assassination include the mistaken idea that Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD as the motorcade passed by the building.

That is a completely untrue proposition, but no doubt will linger on as an urban legend, and be subscribed to by those who are unfamiliar with the finer details of the evidence of this case, and perhaps are looking for a "simple explanation" to justify their belief in Oswald's innocence.

Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder.

DSL

5/13/15 – 7 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David, you said to Mark: "Oswald may well have been telling the truth when he denied "shooting anybody" (I personally believe he was), but the surest way to lose credibility --imho--is to base that belief on the notion that he was "standing in the doorway" at the time of the president's murder." First, I don't think it makes any difference where anyone 'thinks' LHO was when JFK was shot because it is quite clear that he didn't have anything to do with the shooting. But even more interesting to me is when you said:

"Specifically: By Saturday morning, 11/23, in the early a.m., the stretcher bullet from Parkland and the two large fragments found in the presidential limo had arrived at the FBI Laboratory and—when the rifle arrived—would be tested for a ballistic match. Based on the FBI Laboratory Report dated November 23, 1963, he match between the K-1 ("rifle. .with telescope sight Serial No. C2766") and Q 1 (“bullet from stretcher”) and Q2 (“bullet fragment from front seat cushion”) and Q3 (“bullet fragment from beside front seat”) was the basis for the identification of “Oswald’s rifle” as the murder weapon in this case.

Also: it was that same FBI Laboratory Report—dated November 23, 1963 (and available in the Dallas Police File and published in the 26 Volumes of the Warren Commission)—that was couriered from the FBI Lab (in Washington) to “Mr. Jesse E. Curry, Chief of Police, Dallas, Texas” and which forms the heart of the Government’s ballistic “case against Oswald”. It was that FBI Laboratory report which was the basis for Chief Curry’s statements, the day after the assassination, that the FBI Lab had established that the rifle found on the sixth floor (“of the building where Oswald worked” –my quotes) –a rifle which had been “traced” to Oswald because it had been mail-ordered to his Post Office box the previous March—was the murder weapon."

What difference does it make that 'stretcher bullet and bullet fragments from seat' match a rifle that had nothing to do with the shooting of JFK? We know the rifle found in the TSBD was a Mauser, and we know that the C2766 rifle was the one bought to create a match with bullets to be used for the set up. It certainly has never been proven that LHO ever saw C2766. Being mailed to a mail box rented in his name does not establish proof that LHO ever saw the rifle. Then, of course, none of the bullets you mention has been related/tied to JFK's body in any way.

It remains a complete mystery why anyone would attempt to make the link you did with absolutely no evidence tying the bullets to the murder, or the rifle to Oswald or Oswald to the snipers nest. I will say, in my opinion, that all the discussion about whether Lovelady resembles Oswald is only about smoke screening. It has absolutely nothing to do with 'Who shot John'.

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report) but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that gave them a semblance of factual and legal validity.

Whoa, hang on there Kemosabe. The body alteration and the false autopsy report gave "them" a semblance of factual and legal validity?

Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?

I can understand you wanting to inflate your own importance by overstating the super-coolness of the body alteration theory. But no, Dave. Your statement is silly. Rigged or not, there was plenty of legal and factual validity to LHO's arrest. Seeing as how he was probably on the front steps of the building at the time of the shooting, all of this evidence would have most likely been tossed eventually. But at the moment of arrest, frozen in time, there was validity to the action.

MV

May 13, 2015

7:57 AM PDT

Santa Monica, California

Well Mark, good questions, which I will point out that you failed to answer.

"Who's them?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's rifle on the 6th floor?

The ones who claim to have found LHO's palmprint?

The ones who claim to have found an eyewitness who placed LHO in the alleged sniper window?

The ones who claim to have seen LHO shoot Tippit?"

claiming to have found a rifle is substantially different from 'actually' finding a rifle. We all know the 'first' rifle found was the Mauser. Who 'claimed' to have found that?

'claimed' to have 'found' a palmprint? Chuckle. It was even found on the correct rifle.

'claimed' to place LHO in sniper window? No one.

'claimed' to see LHO shoot Tippit? No one identified him. no one described what he was wearing. He wasn't even in the vicinity. So claiming is all that was going on. That was all WC generation and make believe.

I apologize if I'm reading too much into your comments, David, but I think the probability some of the evidence was fabricated or mis-represented to the commission fails to absolve them of guilt. The evidence is quite clear, IMO, that Earl Warren, at the very least, knew he was whitewashing a very dark day.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3c:

The Warren "No-No"s

One needn't be a believer in conspiracies to see that the Warren Commission's investigation was not all that it was cracked up to be--a tireless investigation performed by dedicated men whose only client was the truth, blah blah blah.

[deleting. . to save space. . . ]

(your ending. . .). . .

The Chief Justice, who was, by his own admission, roped into serving as chairman of the commission by President Johnson through the prospect of nuclear war, refused to allow important evidence to be viewed, refused to allow important witnesses to be called, cut off investigations into controversial areas, agreed to keep the testimony before the commission from the public, tried to keep the commission's internal files from the public, and ultimately asked the national archives to help hide some of the evidence available to the commission from the public until a decent interval had passed in which the commission and its friends in the media could sell the commission's conclusions.

Now if that ain't a whitewash, then what the heck is?

Pat:

This investigation of Kennedy’s assassination is akin to a game with many innings.

As you well know, unraveling this thing is like peeling off the layers of an onion, because there were a multiplicity of investigations.

To describe the opening innings of this “game”, which has gone on for some 50 years, and going back on the time-line to the very beginning--and I am referring here to November 22, 1963 and in the next few days, weeks, and (let's say) two months, we have:

a) the initial media reporting (on 11/22/63 and in the days, weeks, and months thereafter)

b ) the Dallas Police Department investigation

c) The Dallas Sheriff’s investigation

d) The FBI investigation—with its initial December 9, 1963 Summary Report

(and then its January 12, 1964 Summary Report)

e) The Secret Service Report (CD 3, of the Warren Commission)

f) The Warren Commission investigation, which commenced—for all practical purposes—in late December 1963, and then really was underway by January 1964.

Yes, I’m perfectly well aware that the Warren Commission investigation had serious deficiencies (as you enumerated)—no doubt about that. But that doesn’t address the issue I have raised: the importance of autopsy fraud in creating a “false reality” –in real time, starting on the evening of the assassination, and then going forward in time.

Without autopsy fraud, there is no factual or legal basis for the arrest of Oswald, or the false perception that he was “the assassin.” Yes, I know those events occurred before the body was actually altered (or before that alteration was completed, anyway, and then codified in writing in the form of a false autopsy report), but it was the alteration and the subsequent creation of the false autopsy report that provided a semblance of authenticity (i.e., of factual and legal validity) to the sniper's nest evidence found within an hour of JFK's murder. Lawyers have a "term of art" which describes the connection (or legal nexus) to which I am referring: the sniper's nest evidence (without a valid autopsy) is arguably "irrelevant"; but with a valid autopsy, it becomes "relevant."

Now moving forward (in time) approximately one week. . .

I have little doubt that (on November 29, 1963, when he accepted the WC appointment) it was made clear to Earl Warren—when his arm was twisted (by LBJ) and he accepted the job of being chairman of the Commission—that there was some “other reality” lurking beneath the surface. That's what many JFK researchers--myself included--have called the "World War 3 cover story." No doubt Lyndon Johnson scared the wits out of Warren by talking of the possibility of a nuclear war with 40 million dead in the first hour if he (Warren) didn't (a) accept the job and (b ) didn't tread carefully. And no doubt, either deliberately or otherwise, that awareness resulted in a Chief Justice who was very likely aware that there were "other issues" that better be left un-investigated and untouched--i.e., in short, behavior that resulted in a seriously flawed investigation.

But. . .so what?

That doesn’t change the basic point I was making: that the covert alteration of Kennedy’s body—the removal of bullets and the alteration of wounds—fundamentally changed the story of how he died (compared to the true story that would have emerged had an honest autopsy been conducted immediately after Kennedy was pronounced dead).

By comparison: If you affix a “calendar date” to each of the flaws you have cited, none of that compares—in importance—with the falsification of the autopsy results; and the creation—starting the night of Kennedy’s death, and certainly extending to the point where the “final” autopsy report was sent to the Warren Commission (on December 20, 1963) --of a false reality about what actually occurred in Dealey Plaza, a false reality that can be traced back to false "medical facts" ascertained at this thoroughly tainted autopsy proceeding.

Your list of Warren Commission “no no’s” only adds to the problem of a blue ribbon legal investigation which –unbeknownst to those conducting it—was based on a false autopsy report containing false medical facts and false conclusions which then resulted in a false (and fraudulent) linkage to a phony sniper’s nest.

So. . .please note: I don’t dispute your list of “no no’s”. I’m simply attempting to put it all in context. I'm asserting that your list is completely secondary to the primary issue at hand, and the one that I am emphasizing of being of primary importance: the mechanics of a deception that unfolded in real time starting that night at the Bethesda morgue with ancillary activities at the FBI Laboratory, where "incoming bullets" (and bullet fragments) were ballistically "matched" to "K-1", a rifle that had nothing to do with the actual shooting.

That's where the investigation went off the rails. That's when there was a substitution of artifacts for real facts.

To understand what happened in this country on November 22, 1963, you have to start with the way this deception functioned, and the manner in which the major media carried the story in the first 24-48 hours—i.e., the “Oswald did it, and did it alone” story; and not be mislead by focusing on the "other problems" (which you have noted, and that developed days, weeks, and months later). All of that provides additional circumstantial evidence that "something's rotten in Denmark," but it does not address the primary issue or provide the key to the case.

Anyone who has analyzed a complex problem and uses a time-line to follow the sequence of events can immediately see what I am talking about: the power of a deception that unfolded in real time, and which then led to major false reporting about "what happened," reporting which was then (seemingly) backed up by a false autopsy report, a report which (normally) would be something that lawyers would routinely rely upon, and which they routinely refer to as the "best evidence."

So. . this is not about "no no's". Those are, by comparison, blemishes. Some serious no doubt, but still blemishes nonetheless.

IMHO: those blemishes--legal blemishes or deficiencies if you will--are merely perturbations when considered in the context of the major (and immediate) consequences of autopsy fraud. Its that which is the core of the problem.

I do not deny the instances of "whitewash" that you have described; I'm simply saying that all of that is distinctly different from the "core of the problem." And it is that "core" that is at the heart of the deception that occurred on November 22, 1963 which resulted in "Oswald's rifle" being viewed as "the murder weapon". Recognizing that falsehood--that false nexus--is what legally invalidates the major conclusions of the Warren Commission Report.

If you compare the Warren Commission Report to a house with some half dozen rooms (corresponding to the different chapters of the Warren Report), it is a house without a proper legal foundation because the President's body was altered.

The reason I believe Oswald is innocent and did not murder President Kennedy is not that I believe he was a nice man of good character who admired the President (all of which is true), but because I am positive that the President's body was altered as part of a plan to falsify the autopsy and create the false appearance that Oswald was guilty.

DSL

5/12/15 – 11:55 p.m. PDT

Edited, 5/13/15, 5:04 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Excellent comments David. And of course, of other prime importance, who had the ability to arrange the changes to the autopsy, the alterations to the body? Once it is recognized that the body was altered, the entire work product of the WC is worthless. It created the 'Oswald's rifle", the SBT. They didn't come from the 'evidence' but from the creation of the WC.

Greg, I just listened to the 44 min tape and listened again to some parts of it. It comes very near to the way I feel about the assassination. Too many people want to argue the 'details' of the assassination and to overlook the big picture. The big picture is that JFK was killed that day for a reason. Whoever was behind it had reasons, maybe several, to do it. In their minds it solved a lot of problems. One being, that it cured 'peace'. It meant almost assuredly that there would be war. But then the responses, as above for DVP, as an example, is an attempt to argue 'details'. Details which are not important. Just look at DVP's language, for example, 'Oswald's rifle', 'SBT', '3 shots', 'bullet came out of his throat', etc. He speaks of these as if they are 'facts'. Oswald's rifle? There is no proof that LHO had a rifle. Besides there were at least three rifles involved. One that Hidell ordered, a different one than the one found at the TSBD, and the Mauser that was found at the TSBD. He speaks of the WCR as if it is 'truth'. All of that is a smoke screen. None of it matters. The result of what happened is that JFK was killed and the world changed that day, much to the better for many of those that were involved in creating his death. They argue about whether LHO was capable of the 3 shots. It doesn't matter, there is absolutely zero evidence that he fired any shots that day. There is, however, more evidence that h e did not fire a shot that day. Clearly the evidence of the information that was shared to the cabinet members that were on the flight to Japan indicate that the preparer of the data already knew of the details of the planned assassination.

DVP makes several claims that both JEH and LBJ mispoke while carrying on recorded conversations, many times. Why is it that the things they 'mispoke' about are the things that now seem to be revealed as the truth. One bullet hit Connally that would have hit JFK if Connally had not been between the shooter and JFK?.

So yes, there is evidence that the shooters were CIA, French assassins, Cuban exiles, Mafia, but what does it matter, it is clear that there were many more than one and that many more than 3 shots were fired. It is clear that the Secret service and FBI were involved. It is clear that LBJ, at a minimum, knew about it and most likely it was his plan that was carried out that day. He certainly was the major beneficiary of the events of the day.

So the Anguish, yes, that one person wanted so much for the world, peaceful coexistence, that just did not fit with the plans of too many that wanted many more benefits that they would not get if JFK remained in office. The world is very likely a much different world today than it might have been. I've attempted to make comments related to your presentation without veering too far off course.

The wind? The wind 'puffed' his lapel outward? The wind? That's the best you can do?

Gee, I thought I was doing pretty good---what with all this stuff linked below that can't possibly be reasonably refuted. It can only be attacked by CTers who want to whine about the Z-Film being faked; but that's not a "reasonable" argument, so it can be dismissed right away....

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT

Oswald's bullet? Fired from the 2nd floor break room?

Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

And just how do you think those 2 large fragments from "Oswald's bullet" managed to find their way into JFK's car if Oswald's gun wasn't being used that day to shoot bullets at Kennedy?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

And can you tell me who was MORE LIKELY to be using Oswald's gun on Nov. 22 (or any other day) than Oswald himself?

"Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63." He was until recently, Since Truly and Baker both saw him there at that time. Have you now found out that he was somewhere else? Oh, maybe you think he was in the Dal Tex building?

Oswald never had a gun.

That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die the agonizing death it deserves (just like dozens of other such conspiracy-oriented myths and fairy tales).

The truth is, of course, that Lee Harvey Oswald's purchase and ownership of Carcano Rifle #C2766 and Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 have been established and proven beyond all possible reasonable doubt (and in many different ways, to boot), as I demonstrate at the links below....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

""That's another conspiracy myth that refuses to die" As you well know, the major conspiracy theory about the assassination is the WCR. We all know that 'a' rifle was ordered by A Hidell. We also know that 'the rifle' ordered by him is not the rifle that was used as the plant in the SBD. It was similar, but distinctlvely different.

"Oswald's bullet" should be more accurately referred to as Jack Ruby's bullet. He's the one that delivered it to Parkland.

They could have been hit at virtually the same time but not by the same bullet. Just like JFK could have been hit in the head by two virtually simultaneous shots.

I doubt either thing was possible (given the Z-Film evidence). Dale Myers' exacting "key framing" of his computer 3D model to the Zapruder Film itself makes it fairly evident that Ron's first suggestion couldn't have occurred ("They could have been hit at virtually the same time but not by the same bullet").

It's pretty clear that Kennedy is in the bullet path during the critical Z-Film period in question when Connally was most likely hit by a bullet. So it looks like that bullet had NO CHOICE but to go through Kennedy first in order to get to Connally's upper back....

As for the two simultaneous head shots --- If that were the case, why is there just ONE explosion of JFK's head? Why don't we see MULTIPLE explosions of blood and brain matter if JFK had been hit two times in the head?

In other words, how could TWO separate shots to the head look so much like just ONE?....

And I think a similar "In other words" question can be asked of the conspiracy theorists who detest the Single-Bullet Theory so much ---

In other words, how could TWO (or more!) bullets have caused the damage to both President Kennedy and Governor Connally....and yet have those multiple bullets look so much like a SINGLE-BULLET EVENT in Abraham Zapruder's home movie AND in Commission Exhibit No. 903, to boot?

"As for the two simultaneous head shots --- If that were the case, why is there just ONE explosion of JFK's head? Why don't we see MULTIPLE explosions" Simultaneously? Multiple? Doesn't 'simultaneously mean 'at the same time'? wouldn't that result in 'one' not 'multiple'. What is that big black blob that is painted around the back of JFK's head in the Z film? How did it get there?

Ron,

You raise an issue here for which I have no answer at present. There has been no debate on the SBT and John Connally's lapel. David Von Pein's posts - throughout these 14 pages - have drowned our any chance for fellow members discussing this issue.

As I mentioned earlier, I was wrong to remove posting privileges of David Von Pein whose opinions I disagreed with. I acknowledge I abused my position as an administrator when I did that.

However, this thread is focusing my interest on a issue that - at the moment - I do not have an answer to. The issue is this: at what point does a member's right to post and discuss limit the rights of other members to also discuss. Is there a point where the rights of other members over ride the rights of any individual member?

Although this thread has reached 14 pages, there has been no serious debate on the issues. And what I do not know is where is the line between every member having his/her right to post and the point where an individual's right to post in limiting fellow members right to debate and discuss.

I do not have an answer to this problem at the moment.

James.

James, I'm having difficulty with your position. DVP started this thread. He offered his opinion. That opinion has been challenged. He responded. How is it possible that his posts can be considered "over riding" the rights of anyone else? Is it the thrust and parry you object to? The way DVP counters the arguments?

I'm afraid I see this as a continuation of your animosity toward him.

Look, DVP's attitude toward CTs in general is annoying, granted. But on occasion he demolishes dumb theories that deserve it.

If a notion can be destroyed by the truth, that's what it deserves.

Ah, but Mark, rarely does VP use the truth to destroy anything. For example, he casually throws out: "Oswald's bullet" as if there is such a thing. As we all know there is not and never has been an "Oswald's bullet", that is only a figment of the imagination of the WC.

The wind? The wind 'puffed' his lapel outward? The wind? That's the best you can do?

Gee, I thought I was doing pretty good---what with all this stuff linked below that can't possibly be reasonably refuted. It can only be attacked by CTers who want to whine about the Z-Film being faked; but that's not a "reasonable" argument, so it can be dismissed right away....

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT

Oswald's bullet? Fired from the 2nd floor break room?

Oswald wasn't in the second-floor break (lunch) room at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

And just how do you think those 2 large fragments from "Oswald's bullet" managed to find their way into JFK's car if Oswald's gun wasn't being used that day to shoot bullets at Kennedy?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

And can you tell me who was MORE LIKELY to be using Oswald's gun on Nov. 22 (or any other day) than Oswald himself?

Oswald never had a gun. That was only part of the set up. Doesn't matter if the z film was faked or not, the wind doesn't blow from in front of you and blow your lapel outward. At least you have a sense of humor.

I live in Austin, TX which is nice. I like to ask old people, people older than 65 what they thought about Lyndon Johnson. The man has no defenders. Almost universally people have anecdotes on how corrupt beyond belief Lyndon Johnson was. Even people who worked directly for him will tell you what a bastard he was. All the love in town is reserved for Lady Bird Johnson, who is considered a revered figure. Even the local Democrats shun Lyndon Johnson; their annual dinner is a "Ralph Yarborough" dinner. I remember one time I went to a nursing home, and one of the ladies there was one of LBJ's mistresses. Someone else told me that one of his requirements for secretaries was "Does she shuck her drawers."

Lyndon Johnson the man is an embarassment down here still. Nobody celebrates his birthday, or his death, or his "accomplishments" (murdering JFK, etc.); the media TV, radio, newspaper, Univ. of Texas are pretty much silent about the man. Nobody throws a big party in his honor such as a "Reagan Day" dinner. Talk to the Republicans, they will tell you LBJ was insanely corrupt. Talk to the Democrats, ditto. Lyndon Johnson in Austin, TX in the year 2010 is like an open herpes sore: no one wants to touch him!

.... now about Dallas ...

John Kennedy on 11/18/63 told George Smathers that Lyndon Johnson was making one of his absurd demands: that Jackie Kennedy ride with Lyndon Johnson in his car on the Texas trip. That right there is "smoking gun" evidence of Lyndon Johnson's participation in the JFK assassination. That is a clever, cunning psychopath in action. Lyndon Johnson knew that John Kennedy was going to be assassinated in a motorcade in Dallas, and out of a twisted sense of chivalry, is trying to get Jackie into the relative safety of his car and out of the kill zone.

Remember what LBJ told his beloved Mistress Madeleine in the morning of 11/22/63: That son-of-a-bitch crazy Yarborough and that goddamn f___king Irish mafia bastard Kennedy, will never embarass me again!" [Texas in the Morning, p. 167]

There is no need to give Lyndon Johnson "the benefit of the doubt" on anything and especially the JFK assassination. There is nothing that he did in his entire life to have earned that. Quite the contrary, read Caro's and Dallak's biographies and you run across mountains of examples of Johnson depraved, crooked and bizarre behavior. The anti-social whackjob in the JFK assassination was not LHO, but rather Lyndon Johnson himself, the usurper president! Bill Moyers and Richard Goodwin, 2 aides SEPARATELY went to see a psychiatrist inquiring about Lyndon Johnson's mental condition. Also, read George Reedy's book on LBJ - calls him a lout and a SADIST. That description from a 15 year aide. LBJ had a sick desire to break men. While at the time time the guy himself could barely function; he was a paranoid basket case (PROJECTING his evil intentions/tactics on others), smoking 3 packs of cigarettes a day and sucking down cases of low end Cutty Sark scotch.

Here is Lyndon Johnson talking through his aide Bill Moyers to get that "goddamned" bubble off JFK's car. Bill Moyers was on the phone from Austin, TX barking out these orders for the Secret Service in Dallas:

"Moyers had been on the phone with Ms. Harris, informing her that the President did not want the bubbletop. He told Harris to 'get that God-damned bubble off unless it's pouring rain.' Shortly thereafter the weather began to clear. Ms. Harris approached Sorrels about the bubble-top and together they had the agents remove the glass top."

[Phillip Nelson, LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination, p.428] Nelson's source for this quote is HSCA, Volume 11, p. 526.

Lyndon Johnson was also a control freak when he was in one of his manic periods, when he was pulling off one of his devious capers, machinations, he had dozens of them. Example would be President Lyndon Johnson calling Will Fritz on 11/23/63 and telling him to STOP his investigation, that he had the right man (patsy LHO). Another would be LBJ on 11/24/63 calling Parkland Hospital himself and personally talking to Dr. Charles Crenshaw and trying his best to get a confession out of the accused assassin (patsy) the dying Oswald.

Did not mean to forget Lyndon Johnson on literally the afternoon of 11/22/63 calling his financial advisor, saying he had to SELL HIS HALLIBURTION STOCK!

Pardon my asking, but what in the hell is going on in the mind of that man? Remember, LBJ has done nothing to earn "the benefit of the doubt" in his entire life. That is not the state of mind of a man worried about an "international conspiracy" or "nuclear war" or being killed by a hit squad on the loose. It is the state of mind of a man trying to think of all the ways he can of covering up his participation in the slaughter of the nation's president.

[From Family of Secrets by Russ Baker, p. 132]

Pat Holloway, former attorney to both Poppy Bush and Jack Crichton, recounted to me an incident involving LBJ that had greatly disturbed him. This was around 1PM on November 22, 1963, just as Kennedy was being pronounced dead. Holloway was heading home from the office and was passing through the reception area. The switchboard operator excitedly noted that she was patching the vice president through from Parkland Hospital to Holloway’s boss, firm senior partner Waddy Bullion, who was LBJ’s personal tax lawyer. The operator invited Holloway to listen in. LBJ was talking “not about a conspiracy or a tragedy,” Holloway recalled. “I heard him say: ‘Oh I gotta get rid of my goddamn Halliburton stock.’ Lyndon Johnson was talking about the consequences of his political problems with his Halliburton stock at a time when the president had been officially declared dead. And that pissed me off… It really made me furious.”

Then post assassination, Lyndon Johnson starts making "cowboy love" to Jackie, telling her he wants to be the "daddy" of Caroline and John-John.

From LBJ: Architect of American Ambition:

“During his first five weeks in office, Johnson called Jackie numerous times. Instinctively, awkwardly, he attempted to make what Hubert Humphrey referred to as “cowboy love” to her. A conversation the first week in December was typical: “Your picture was gorgeous. Now you had that chin up and that chest out and you looked so pretty marching in the front page of the New York Daily News … well,” LBJ said “I just came, sat in my desk and started signing a log of long things, and I decided to I wanted to flirt with you a little bit…. Darling, you know what I said to the Congress – I’d give anything in the world if I wasn’t here today … Tell Caroline and John-John I’d like to be their daddy!”

[LBJ: Architect of American Ambition, Randall Woods, p. 423]

That, my friend, is a CHAMPION psychopath in action. Lyndon Johnson slaughter's Jackie's husband, then he wants to be the "daddy" of Caroline and John-John. All the while telling Kennedy's staff "Ah need yew more than he ever did" to every one of them.

So what is a "psychopath?" A psychopath is someone who often looks "normal" sometimes even "charming" but there is something seriously wrong with them. They use people. They have no empathy. They are dangerous. Another psycopath would be Ted Bundy - volunteers at a suicide hotline - then its on to slaughtering coeds. How many markers of a psychopath does Lyndon Johnson display. Really? Let's see if Lyndon Johnson displays characteristics of a psychopath.

A psychopath will use people for excitement, entertainment, to build their self-esteem and they invariably value people in terms of their material value (e.g. money, property, comfort, etc..). They can involve and get other people into trouble quickly and they seem to have no regret for their actions. To date there is no checklist of behavior and symptoms that will tell you with certainty whether or not a person is a psychopath. But there are warning signs. The following warning signs are based on my experience but primarily research conducted by Robert Hare, Ph.D - the leading expert on the Psychopathic Personality.

http://www.crisiscounseling.com/articles/psychopath.htm

Characteristics of a Psychopath

1) superficial charm [LBJ would find a powerful person, then totally bootlick them.]

2) self-centered & self-important [100% LBJ]

3) need for stimulation & prone to boredom [Yes, hated to be alone]

4) deceptive behavior & lying [Possibly LBJ's #1 trait]

5) conning & manipulative [ LBJ not just conning, but "cunning" - master manipulator]

6) little remorse or guilt [how about killing the nanny Dale Turner? Is that ruthless enough for you?]

7) shallow emotional response [Yes.]

8) callous with a lack of empathy [besides lying, the other great trait of LBJ]

9) living off others or predatory attitude [God yes, like a jackal or hyena]

10) poor self-control [many examples of this]

11) promiscuous sexual behavior [Very promiscous. Bragged he had more women by accident than JFK had on purpose]

12) early behavioral problems [LBJ's grandmother PREDICTED he would go to jail.]

13) lack of realistic long term goals [Tell everyone for decades he was going to be President, (even if he had to kill to get there)]

14) impulsive lifestyle [impulsive, yes, but also a clever planner and manipulator]

15) irresponsible behavior [LBJ should have been executed by the state multiple times]

16) blaming others for their actions [Robert Kennedy was not the only one he hated]

17) short term relationships [Johnson had long term relationships; but if you threatened him, they got shorter real quick with a call to Mac Wallace]

18) juvenile delinquency [LBJ's grandmother PREDICTED he would go to jail.]

19) breaking parole or probation [Lyndon Johnson, too cunning, clever, ruthless and dangerous to go to jail! But he had to murder to cover up many things. He was not far away from jail.]

20) varied criminal activity [kickbacks, taking bribes, blackmailing, jury tampering, murder - A+ criminal. Should have been executed multiple times over.]

The idea that psychopaths eat people is a myth. In reality, a person with a psychopathic personality can lead what appears to be an ordinary life. They can have jobs, get married and they can break the law like anyone else. But their jobs and marriages usually don’t last and their life is usually on the verge of personal chaos. They are almost always in some kind of trouble or they are not far from it.

A psychopath is usually a subtle manipulator. They do this by playing to the emotions of others. They typically have high verbal intelligence, but they lack what is commonly referred to as "emotional intelligence". There is always a shallow quality to the emotional aspect of their stories. In particular they have difficulty describing how they felt, why they felt that way, or how others may feel and why. In many cases you almost have to explain it to them. Close friends and parents will often end up explaining to the psychopath how they feel and how others feel who have been hurt by him or her. They can do this over and over with no significant change in the person's choices and behavior. They don't understand or appreciate the impact that their behavior has on others. They do appreciate what it means when they are caught breaking rules or the law even though they seem to end up in trouble again. They desperately avoid incarceration and loss of freedom but continue to act as if they can get away with breaking the rules. They don't learn from these consequences. They seem to react with feelings and regret when they are caught. But their regret is not so much for other people as it is for the consequences that their behavior has had on them, their freedom, their resources and their so called "friends." They can be very sad for their self. A psychopath is always in it for their self even when it seems like they are caring for and helping others. The definition of their "friends" are people who support the psychopath and protect them from the consequence of their own antisocial behavior. Shallow friendships, low emotional intelligence, using people, antisocial attitudes and failure to learn from the repeated consequences of their choices and actions help identify the psychopath.

Sounds like he wasn't fooling anyone.

I think Jack Ruby's mother was behind the whole thing. Why else would the WC Report publish her dental records?

You may be on to something.

If LBJ was the master of the plot, he must have lived in terrible fear post-assassination. Fear that he'd be uncovered. After all, many in the 1960s thought he was behind the assassination. LBJ appeared, to me at least, to have no such fear; no such guilt weighing on him.

I acknowledge that LBJ was a ruthless S.O.B., who likely had Mac Wallace as a gunman. Maybe he, LBJ, was without conscience. He certainly did seem to lack remorse over Viet Nam. Maybe LBJ was the master plotter.

I'm inclined to believe, however, the plotters were well aware of LBJ's legal predicament in the fall of 1963 and knew if they allowed him to become president, he would not come after them. They would always have the goods on LBJ.

It hasn't been widely reported, but the evidence is quite clear that LBJ DID live in constant fear, Jon. He told his ghostwriters that after the assassination he thought Robert Kennedy was gonna try to prevent him from becoming President. He said that if it hadn't been for the Warren Commission RFK would have had him arrested. He also told his buddy Abe Fortas that he thought RFK was behind all the conspiracy books.

He was paranoid. A number of psychiatrists have studied his behavior, moreover, and have concluded he was quite ill.

Think Macbeth.

What question about the coverup can't be answered with LBJ?. If LBJ was behind the entire thing, then every incidence can be explained. It is now well known that he was bipolar for most of his life and especially controlled by it the last 10-15 years of his life.

I don't think Roy Kellerman was a "xxxx". He was wrong (i.e., "mistaken"), but not a xxxx.

IMO, Kellerman heard Governor Connally shouting "My God, they're going to kill us all".

I know that Connally didn't have the Boston accent that JFK had, but given the fact the zero other people in the car heard JFK utter a word, and since we know that Gov. Connally DID utter the above words (including two of the words Kellerman claimed he heard JFK say--"My God"), well, in my view, the answer is that Kellerman must have heard Connally and not Kennedy.

with the very first bullet going through JFK's throat, it's not likely anyone heard him say anything.

Bob,

One possible explanation (and undoubtedly not the only one) is that the wind accentuated the coat/lapel "bulge/flip" after Connally's suit coat had been moved to some extent by Oswald's bullet.

But the notion that John Connally's coat just HAPPENS to bulge outward a great deal at virtually the exact same instant that a bullet is striking the Texas Governor (with that bullet creating damage to the right side of JBC's jacket) is almost impossible to contemplate, IMO.

Sure, I guess such a miraculous "coincidence" IS possible. But is it very likely?

the wind? the wind 'puffed' his lapel outward? The wind? That's the best you can do? Oswalds bullet? Fired from the 2nd floor break room?

Bill, my two cents is not even worth half that amount, but if I were to wager it, I would lean heavily to that being LHO.

The main reason I don't think it's Oswald. If anyone were standing there when the president were shot directly in front of him, he would stay there and look until he knew what had happened. He would not just say " what the hell, I need a Coke".

IMHP-

All the powerful interests didn't want Kennedy dead, per se, only out of the White House. These parties could have discredited Kennedy with sex scandals (Judith Exner,Mary Pinchot,Marilyn Monroe tapes(allegedly),etc) that made his re-election virtually impossible, and clear the way for "their" candidate, whoever that would be. There is only one party who would have gone to jail and lost everything if Kennedy lived to run in 11/64. And after Kennedy's death, he was the power to cover up everything with his best friends: Hoover at the FBI, the head of the Secret Service, who later worked in his administration,and his friends in Texas.

I go along with your thinking.

I believe the highest-level plotters were outside the U.S. Government and included members of the Eastern Establishment who had financial interests at odds with certain of JFK's domestic and foreign policies.

That's sort of like saying the Mafia did it, which ignores the fact that the Mafia did not have the power to cover up the crime. How would members of the Eastern Establishment have the power to cover up the crime? The cover-up involved (and continues to involve) the full force of the U.S. government.

That's right. Someone very high in the government