Kenneth Drew

Paul I agree that it seems very hard to believe that all the events that transpired immediately after the assassination were only done on the spur of the moment to prevent the public thinking it was a Cuban or Soviet plot. That there just happened to be a spare 'gray' coffin on Air Force One. That secondary transportation for that coffin, separate from the bronze coffin seems to have been pre-planned. That plans were in place to insure that Jackie was not in the room with the body while it could be moved to the other coffin. All this was put together by Hoover within just a couple hours after the shooting? While I'm willing to give Hoover due credit, I hardly see him as a 'Mastermind". How was it already set up to have two autopsy teams at different facilities? I find it difficult to believe that Edwin Walker had that kind of influence.

Douglas, would you link us to something somewhere that would be proof that GWB was a cocaine user? I just did a Google search and I couldn't find one. Seems as if you are well versed though so I'd guess you have them right in front of you.

As far as Kerry/Bush goes I'm not interested in debating. I'm no fan of either one but if push came to shove, one requested duty in South Vietnam while the other clung to his silver spoon. You do know that Bush requested duty in Vietnam several times. Right? So Kerry had the silver spoon, did I get that right?

I find it equally refreshing to know that we do have some admitted History re-writers here on the forum. I live in Louisiana and I know very well what the situation was with Katrina, and I know that it was primarily a Dim/liberal news bashing, as usual. At least you have enough integrity to at least not try to back up your assertion that the documents were 'fake but true'. But as to your statement about Bush, I believe he went to Europe numerous times and I don't recall him being incarcerated. You do know that the 'World Court' has no legal standing in the United States, right? If Bush is guilty of a crime, wouldn't he be extradited for trial? The crime of treason for Kerry was a US law, not a World court one, so why would they care where he travels? I provided a couple links about the stories on Kerry, I notice you didn't say which were not true. Do you believe he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968? Did any of his loyal crewmembers second his statement about that? Was it a lie, or not? "George W. Bush's foreign travels have taken him to Africa (enough said)" can't figure if you mean that as a bash or a compliment. Is there something wrong with going to Africa? A Kerry supporter is so unusual, I'm surprised to find one here. I guess you're a lone nutter also.(tho I'm not accusing you of it)

Joshua is a "scholar" for the American Enterprise Institute. He was probably sitting on Wolfowitz's lap while he typed this out. So you're saying that when Kerry said on the floor of the US Senate that he was in Cambodia on Christmas 1968 on the orders of President Nixon and that it is in the Senate record, that someone was sitting on someone's lap in the Senate recording that? I don't think I'd be trying to make a hero out of John Kerry when even the Washington Post said he was a xxxx. If the Washington Post is opposed to a liberal, how bad can that be? Joshua Muravchik is a fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute of Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and an adjunct professor at the DC-based Institute of World Politics. Hmmmm

If you want a different story on how well you can believe John Kerry, here's a little link: Kerry's Cambodia Whopper By Joshua Muravchik Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17 Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry's qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry's apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia. It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. read more: : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27211-2004Aug23.html Realize this is the Washington Post: Check this link for where he says it was President Nixon at that Christmas of 68 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/9/20040809-090612-9480r/

Douglas, providing a link to a liberal site which serves as a mouthpiece for the NY Times can hardly 'set the record' straight. They didn't point out anything at all that Corsi said that they claim is untrue, all the article does is bash Corsi. Do you believe that Kerry was in Cambodia on his swift boat at President Nixon's order at Christmas 1968? Kerry said he was. I find it interesting that you chose to provide the link to 'set the record straight on Corsi' instead of providing a link to 'set the record straight' on George Bush. I will point out that 'when the truth' got all shook out, that Dan Rather and Mapes were out of a job and GW Bush was re'elected president. I realize I'm not going to change your mind about either of those two persons, and it doesn't matter if you do or do not, but there can be no doubt that Kerry was a traitor to his country. His meeting in Paris in 1970 with both branches of the enemy was clearly treason. G W Bush served 6 years and was a qualified fighter pilot that volunteered for duty in Viet Nam.

while it appears there might be something scratched on it, it's not clear who's mark it might be. a J is not consistent with DAY. Kenneth, If you re-read my post, I stated "JC Day" (see above) as the Lieutenant's name. i.e. John Carl Day. If that is a "J" and IF it was made by JC Day, I can't imagine why he would only use his first initial "J", especially as he went by his middle name Carl. A single initial is unlikely to be considered an acceptable evidence mark. Since there ARE some vertical and horizontal lines to the left of the "J", it seems likely that at least one letter is/was located to the left of the "J." It seems more likely the first initial is illegible, and the "J" represents someone's last name. To my eye, the "J" is too distinct to be dismissed as ra Tondom scratches. Tom I agree Tom and it seems unlikely that Day would use a J since it seemed he traditionally used DAY. It does appear to be a J.

Great find, Chris! Here's a Hi-Res of one side of the clip depicted in CE-575: Inside the blue rectangle, on the RH side, do I see an upper case letter "J"? On the left there is a straight vertical line as well as some other lines... In Barry Krusch's video, on one of the hulls are the letters "DA" followed by an angled line that IMHO is a "Y". If true, and JC Day is consistent in how he initials evidence, he has scratched "DAY" in upper case letters. Tom while it appears there might be something scratched on it, it's not clear who's mark it might be. a J is not consistent with DAY.

You'd be surprised, Jon. I talk to millennials every now and again and I find that when one sticks to the basic facts they're interested and even down-right insightful .One time I pointed out to a millennial friend that her generation wasn't interested in the JFK assassination. "That's because they make it so boring," she said. A couple weeks later she asks me what I'd been up to, and I said -- "Giving people hell about the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination." "What are the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination?" "You don't want to know." "No -- I want to know. Tell me." "Okay. He was shot in the back at the level of his third vertebra. The round didn't exit, and no round was discovered during the autopsy. He was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy. So the central mystery of the case is -- 'What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?'" "...Well, was it a real autopsy?" "A lot of problems with the autopsy but the basic facts remain...some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--" "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Now, about a year later I told this anecdote to another millennial and when I got to the last line -- "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved" -- she immediately blurted -- "That's what I was gonna say!!" One could have attended every major JFK conference for the past decade and never get this level of insight into the JFK assassination. This made me wonder -- how could previously un-interested kids, armed with the basic facts of the case, trump the accumulated research experience of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community? It finally dawned on me. Folks born before 1970 or so grew up on James Bond and the notion high tech spy weaponry is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy. The idea that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy -- which is exactly what the autopsists speculated when they had the body in front of them -- strikes the ears of a baby boomer as something silly. Most boomers simply cannot take this scenario seriously. Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix, by Andy and Lana Wachowski. Agent Smith vs. Agent 007. High tech weaponry and government nobility versus high tech weaponry and government perfidy. To a Boomer the idea of a dissolving bullet is silly. To a Millennial such a scenario is obvious. "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Or, uh it was some stuff that they imported in from the future by time machine and after the shooting it was 'called' back to it's time, so it left no traces behind. Ah. Contempt prior to investigation. Quite the common condition hereabouts. I don't think any of this 'magic dissolving' stuff has been found to exist. So, how is that "thinking" stuff working out for you? http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf I'm not a boomer or a millennial, I'm a 'greatest generationer' so maybe that's why I think that way. I'll bet all of those folks at the assassination were communicating by cell phone, or at least that would be obvious to a millennial. Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports. You might, however.... I know a family that recently visited the 6th floor museum and they just assumed (didn't know any details) that the museum told them the truth, that LHO, a lone nutter, shot JFK with a rifle from the snipers nest. No question about it. Millennials don't have a problem grasping the information contained in those Church Committee reports. You might, however.... So Cliff, you think the millennials invented the bright bulbs, eh? From your photo, I'd say you're not a spring chick either, so tell you what. Get on the internet and take a few of those quizzes along with a millennial, some in 'common sense, some in history, knowledge of JFK, US Constitution, who is president and I will assure you that if you are average, you will outscore all of them. I know I do. Add reasoning and math skills also. Millennials depend on Siri to answer their questions for them and don't know who to call if she doesn't answer. You can give them all the credit you wish.

Jon, I like to think of myself as an Internet pioneer and co-founder (was lucky enough to be at MIT at the time and worked deploying the network. After that, was appointed Tzar of the Venezuelan branch and worked expanding it to other Latin American countries). I also -like you- always tell folks that despite my early background do not use social media. What gives? This is the thing: I do not consider LinkedIn to be social. It is more properly defined as a professional network. I have avoided Tweeter and Facebook like that plague. Let me put it in another way: the forum that I am describing and this one are not that different, are they? Congrats on still looking like a youngster in your photos. I was in the Research Triangle Park back in the early 70's where the 'beginnings' of the internet had spread after originating back in the 60's out in California after some of the early concept work of the early 60's at MIT, etc. It was fascinating back in those days with the blazing speeds in the low Kbps. It hadn't improved very much even by the late 80's where it was still in the kbps ranges where I could watch the operating systems from the manufacturing.operations on a laptop at home. Sitting here in my house now with an iphone 5s directly off a cell tower I can download at 40 mbps. Seems almost unbelievable but with Google fiber now hitting 1000mbps, wow.....And I'm sure, that since you were there at MIT back in the early 60's must be even more amazed at the things you are seeing now compared to those pioneering days. I didn't realize Al Gore was that old either.

Greg: I am well aware of Corsi and his underhanded activities. In 2004 he swift-boated John Kerry's tour in Vietnam using a pack of lies so that George W. Bush, whose days in the Alabama National Guard were cocaine- filled, would be re-elected. Swift boated? Kerry did a pretty good job of that on himself, he didn't need Corsi's efforts. Kerry committed treason against his country and needs no propping up. I find it strange you are still repeating the story that got Dan Rather fired from one of the highest profile jobs in the country, along with his partner in crime. You ever wonder why the Air National Guard would let a cocaine addict fly a fighter jet and do you think he could do that repeatedly and effectively while high on cocaine? With the high fatality rate amongst fighter pilots, you'd think those high on Coke would be most likely to plant themselves into the ground. Let's see, the documents were 'fake but accurate'.

You'd be surprised, Jon. I talk to millennials every now and again and I find that when one sticks to the basic facts they're interested and even down-right insightful .One time I pointed out to a millennial friend that her generation wasn't interested in the JFK assassination. "That's because they make it so boring," she said. A couple weeks later she asks me what I'd been up to, and I said -- "Giving people hell about the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination." "What are the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination?" "You don't want to know." "No -- I want to know. Tell me." "Okay. He was shot in the back at the level of his third vertebra. The round didn't exit, and no round was discovered during the autopsy. He was shot in the throat from the front, the round didn't exit, and no round was recovered during the autopsy. So the central mystery of the case is -- 'What happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?'" "...Well, was it a real autopsy?" "A lot of problems with the autopsy but the basic facts remain...some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--" "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Now, about a year later I told this anecdote to another millennial and when I got to the last line -- "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved" -- she immediately blurted -- "That's what I was gonna say!!" One could have attended every major JFK conference for the past decade and never get this level of insight into the JFK assassination. This made me wonder -- how could previously un-interested kids, armed with the basic facts of the case, trump the accumulated research experience of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community? It finally dawned on me. Folks born before 1970 or so grew up on James Bond and the notion high tech spy weaponry is the stuff of Hollywood fantasy. The idea that JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy -- which is exactly what the autopsists speculated when they had the body in front of them -- strikes the ears of a baby boomer as something silly. Most boomers simply cannot take this scenario seriously. Millennials, on the other hand, grew up on The Matrix, by Andy and Lana Wachowski. Agent Smith vs. Agent 007. High tech weaponry and government nobility versus high tech weaponry and government perfidy. To a Boomer the idea of a dissolving bullet is silly. To a Millennial such a scenario is obvious. "Or it was some government [stuff] that dissolved!" Or, uh it was some stuff that they imported in from the future by time machine and after the shooting it was 'called' back to it's time, so it left no traces behind. I don't think any of this 'magic dissolving' stuff has been found to exist. I'm not a boomer or a millennial, I'm a 'greatest generationer' so maybe that's why I think that way. I'll bet all of those folks at the assassination were communicating by cell phone, or at least that would be obvious to a millennial. I know a family that recently visited the 6th floor museum and they just assumed (didn't know any details) that the museum told them the truth, that LHO, a lone nutter, shot JFK with a rifle from the snipers nest. No question about it.

I agree with your statement. I've not joined linkedin or twitter, both 'not my thing' mostly for 'cute comments' both are severely limited in no of characters per post, so not much interchange.

Almost everybody in the news business referred to the SS-100-X limo as the "Bubbletop" or the "Famous bubbletop from Washington", regardless of whether the car had the "bubble" affixed to it or not. Walter Cronkite called the car the "bubbletop" on numerous occasions during his initial assassination bulletins on 11/22. So none of the LNers had a clue?

It's strange to me that apparently Smith got a Pulitizer Prize for that story and it was all phony baloney. Anyone that read it the first time would know it was all made up. He could barely see the bubble top, he could barely make out something pink, Jackie's dress? 'inside a bubble top', then he could see it clearly. I wonder why DVP posted this total hog wash story. Must fit the LN criteria for authenticity.

I think the problem here is he had written this up beforehand when they were supposed to have the bubble top on the car. They only removed it at the last minute. He didn't know that. His total story is phony, made up.

The other 'copter, with the President was bound where? I believe at least one chopper transported the grey coffin to one of the medical centers for the 'early' autopsy and alterations.

"How do you get outside?" I gasped. "The President has been hurt and this is an emergency call." "Dial nine," he said, shoving the phone toward me. It took two tries before I successfully dialed the Dallas UPI number. I'm guessing the Dallas UPI office had a Medical Emergency Team standing by? This whole story is such phony baloney.

I ran to the side of the bubble-top. what? where was this guy? is he having a problem with memory? is this the only thing his memory is faulty on?

Everyone in our car began shouting at the driver to pull up closer to the President's car, but at this moment, we saw the big bubble-top and a motorcycle escort roar away at high speed. "we saw the big bubble-top and a motorcycle" what does that mean? What was the 'big bubble-top'? Is someone making it up as he goes along?

Thanks, Chris. I'm looking forward to seeing what you have. IIRC, it is alleged that Fritz kept one of the hulls found in the "sniper's nest" in his desk drawer. I've never found much of a trail for the live round. I've seen this clip before. My reaction in watching it is the same now as it was the first time I watched it. At least two of the hulls at NARA are NOT the ones allegedly found on the 6th floor. With this photographic evidence obtained by Barry Krusch, how can this fact be refuted by anyone? Tom I certainly want to acknowledge that Barry Krusch did an excellent job on proving that there was no case against LHO. His tracking of the shells from the TSBD was excellent.

By "better documentation", I assume you mean just more documentation or better quality documentation? Or are you willing to concede that some documentation is manipulated, contrived, falsified or destroyed? We don't have any photographic or video record of the live round being removed from the weapon on the sixth floor of the TSBD. We only have testimony and documentation. Some of that documentation is already controversial as far as the number of spent rounds recovered. To suggest that there are other possibilities for the what we see in the Alyea film vs. the weapon that was presented on the sidewalk outside but we won't discuss those because they present a different paradigm, is a little dishonest, no? By "better documentation", I assume you mean just more documentation or better quality documentation? Or are you willing to concede that some documentation is manipulated, contrived, falsified or destroyed? All the above. The president of the USA was assassinated. you would think they would immediately put someone in charge to make sure no detail got overlooked. Well, they did put someone in charge but it was for the opposite reason. To insure that nothing was detailed enough to even allow it to be used as evidence. The rifle from the TSBD was/is not evidence. It had nothing to do with the assassination. It was just a diversion, no shots were fired from there. There were at least two rifles removed from the floor, one or more of those disappeared. There was no clip, there was a clip. Why don't we know the answer to that? No one has ever proved that a Manlicher Carcano rifle was associated with the assassination other than as plants. No bullet that was fired from a MC on 11/22 has ever been recovered. LHO never owned a MC rifle. Until some one proves he did, then he didn't.

What I'm wondering is how the f* photos like these are so overlooked for 50 years? Maybe it's because it's not really evidence in the assassination. Only in the diversion.

All good enough theories, however I've never heard that there were 2 live rounds at the scene. It's unfortunate that better documentation was not done so that we wouldn't have to guess and speculate so much on 'what might have been true'.