Michael Griffith

Will you stop it Mike. I don't think you realize just how bad posts like the above make you look. And I don't think you realize how bad your dismissive polemic makes you look. You're attacking and rejecting a book that you haven't even read, and your primary source for rejecting Rothmiller is a love-struck Marilyn Monroe fan who can't even admit that she was promiscuous or that she had affairs with RFK and JFK. Fred Otash, of all people. And any auther who relies on Otash is simply not credible. Says the guy who relies on the anti-Semitic crackpot Fletcher Prouty. What about all the documents in the 11 boxes from Otash's storage unit? What about the parts of Otash's story that Thompson was able to verify? Oh, that's right: you don't know about any of this because you haven't read the book. I won't even comment on Prouty, Jeff Carter is on fine footing there. This is just more of your frothing about like a wild geyser at Yosemite. Jeff Carter didn't even discern from the video that Prouty clearly claimed that Chiang Kai-shek was at the Tehran Conference, when we know for a fact that he was not. You might want to go read my last two replies in that thread. I think Mike is being deliberately obtuse on this one since no one would buy his Vietnam baloney. I think any objective person who reads our exchanges on Vietnam will see (1) that your research on Vietnam has been limited and one-sided; (2) that you cited many fringe, amateurish sources, sources that even liberal scholars have repudiated (e.g., Turse); (3) that you made several inexcusably erroneous claims about the war, (4) that you are not qualified to talk about the war; and (5) that you had no answer for the evidence I presented. Mike, if you have nothing to say or contribute, just don't say anything. Because your net contribution to this forum is really quite negative. On the contrary, you are the one who spews personal attacks and dismissive diatribes against anyone who doesn't go along with your version of JFK and the assassination. Just yesterday you created a thread dedicated solely to throwing personal insults and strident attacks against Mark Shaw, a decent and sincere researcher who has developed significant new evidence in the JFK case, and who has reached many more people with the basic case for conspiracy than your books have reached. All over the fact that you cannot accept that in 1991, John Newman and Oliver Stone and Fletcher Prouty were correct on JFK getting out of Vietnam. We both know that even the vast majority of liberal scholars reject the Stone-Prouty-Newman fiction about JFK getting out of Vietnam. You have gone so far out to the fringe on this issue that you even find it necessary to attack liberal scholars who are just as anti-war as you are. Indeed, you've even claimed that ultra-liberal activist and investigative journalist Chip Berlet is not really a liberal. Oh, Berlet most definitely is a liberal, an ultra-liberal, who has done valuable work in exposing white supremacists, neo-fascists, and anti-Semites, and who has worked for a long list of liberal groups, including the ACLU. But you have gone so far to the extreme left of the spectrum that even Berlet does not qualify as a liberal in your eyes, partly because Berlet has documented Prouty's anti-Semitic activities and statements. I suspect that one of the reasons you have launched such a frenzied attack on a good guy like Mike Rothmiller, without even bothering to read his book, is that his transcription of Marilyn's diary includes an entry that shows that JFK was determined to win the Vietnam War. And, by the way, Marilyn's friends and associates verified that she was a diligent diary keeper, that she often kept her diary handy and that she made frequent entries.

This is just unbelievable. Prouty was obviously telling a bogus tale to make himself look important and knowledgeable, but you guys just don't want to admit it. There is not one shred--not one tiny speck--of evidence from any memos, diaries, meeting minutes, memoirs, newspaper accounts, reports, etc., that Chiang and his delegation were even in Tehran at the time, much less that they met secretly with Stalin. No such alleged meeting is mentioned in a single Soviet, British, American, or Chinese source. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Chiang and his delegation flew back to China right after the conclusion of the Cairo Conference. We know for a fact that Chiang and his delegation were in Ramgarh in northeastern India on 11/30/43, where they stopped on the way back to China to inspect and visit Chinese troops who were being trained there by the U.S. Army. The visit was publicized, naturally enough, and we have the speech that Chiang gave to the Chinese troops. Yes, Chiang's first wife was Soong's sister. So what? That doesn't validate Prouty's bogus claim that Soong controlled Chiang. You won't find that nonsense in any book about Chiang or Soong. Again, Soong quit Chiang's government because he couldn't get Chiang to be as tough with the Japanese as Soong thought he should be, and Soong didn't return to Chiang's government for nine years. I could also talk about the utterly erroneous claims that Prouty made in the interview regarding Chiang Kai-shek's actions during World War II, but I suspect they would be met with the same surreal, unserious denials and excuses that we have already seen in this thread.

This is another one of your unfair and misleading attacks on a fellow researcher, a researcher who has developed important new evidence in the JFK case and who has reached a huge audience with the basic case for conspiracy in JFK's death--and all because he does not agree with your fringe, fantasy-laced version of the Kennedys and of the assassination. At least Mark Shaw does not endorse and peddle the nutty, bogus claims made by the anti-Semitic crackpot Fletcher Prouty. But you do. On balance, Mark Shaw's research is valuable and informative. All things considered, his research is more credible than yours, and he is a more effective advocate for the basic case for conspiracy than you are. Another big plus in Mark Shaw's favor is that he, unlike you, does not go out of his way to discredit and attack fellow WC critics just because they don't completely agree with his version of the assassination.

The amount of denial on the part of Prouty defenders in this thread is simply astonishing, the latest remarkable example being the refusal to acknowledge that Prouty told another bogus tale when he claimed, in very plain English, that Chiang and his delegation attended the Tehran Conference. We know for an absolute fact that neither Chiang nor his delegation was at the Tehran Conference. Let's read what Prouty said: [44:50 to 45:28] A lot of people haven't studied the Tehran Conference enough. It was Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and [his emphasis] Chiang Kai-shek. You can't find a single book that will say that Chiang Kai-shek was at that [stops]. . . . I have one book that says that Chiang Kai-shek was at the Tehran Conference [yeah, written by Iam Nuts and titled Bogus Claims for Crackpots to Repeat]. I was at the Tehran Conference. I was the pilot that flew the Chinese there. So I know damn well they were there. I flew them there. At 45:43, Prouty says that Chiang Kai-shek was "controlled by T. V. Soong," which is total, complete hogwash. Soong resigned from Chiang's government in 1933 because he didn't think Chiang was being tough enough against the Japanese! He didn't return to Chiang's government for nine years. Some "control," hey? At 45:50, Prouty says that T. V. Soong was "the wealthiest man in the world"! LOL! Really?! Uh, no, he was not. Not even close. Let's continue with Prouty's fiction about Chiang and his delegation attending the Tehran Conference: [47:00 to 47:33] I had been at the Cairo Conference, and then I flew the Chinese up to Tehran from Cairo. These were T. V. Soong's delegates that had been there at the conference. . . . There was no secret that the Chinese were going up there, except to the newspapers. They never mentioned it, and books don't mention it. Uh, that's because it never happened. Soong and the rest of the delegation accompanied Chiang back to China after the Cairo Conference. But even if one wants to ignore Prouty's plain assertion that the Tehran Conference included Chiang Kai-shek, there is still the fact that Soong and the rest of the delegation returned with Chiang to China after the Cairo Conference. They attended Chiang's review of the Chinese troops who were training at the Ramgarh training facility. At 47:55, Prouty says that Elliott Roosevelt, FDR's son, saw the Chinese "going up there" (to Tehran) because he and Prouty saw each other at an Iraqi airport en route to Tehran, and that Elliott knew the Chinese were in Tehran. Uh, sorry, but, by all accounts, the first time T. V. Soong met Stalin was in June 1945. Again, Soong returned with Chiang to China after the Cairo Conference. If there had been a secret meeting between Stalin and Chiang and/or Soong, there would have been no reason to keep it secret after the war. There is not one shred of evidence in Soviet, British, American, and Chinese sources that such a meeting occurred. This is not surprising, since Chiang and Soong and the rest of the delegation returned to China after the Cairo Conference. So here we have caught Prouty red-handed fabricating tales once again. How in the world can you people keep defending this guy? He was a crackpot and a fraud. He made up bogus stories to make himself look important. He also exaggerated and embellished. And this is not to mention his prolonged, sleazy associations with anti-Semites, Holocaust deniers, and the Church of Scientology.

Rothmiller is no Norman Mailer. Mailer said many things that he knew, or should have known, were false, especially about the JFK case. He even claimed that Oswald spoke poor, broken Russian. When I asked Mailer to send me the reenactment photo that he claimed duplicated the variant shadows in the backyard rifle photos, he referred me to Larry Schiller. The photo that Schiller sent me did not even come close to duplicating those shadows. When I confronted Mailer with this fact, he ended the discussion. If you read Bombshell, you'll learn about the extensive research that Thompson did to corroborate Rothmiller's account.

I knew Howard Donahue, not well, but I knew him. He began to suspect that a rifle from the follow-up car caused the head shot because (1) he knew that the dented shell found in the sniper's nest could not have fired a bullet that day, (2) that the trajectory from the sixth-floor window through JFK's head was impossible given the entry point and the skull damage, and (3) that FMJ bullets do not leave fragments on or just below the outer table of the skull when they enter the skull. Howard was one of those fine Americans who found it very hard to believe that his government would brazenly lie to him about something so important as the death of a president. He just could not process it. Thus, he accepted the SBT and went looking for a non-conspiratorial explanation for the head shot.

Huh??? You must be joking. Go watch the video. Prouty clearly says that he flew Chiang and his delegation to Tehran and that Chiang and his delegation attended the conference. He says several times that Chiang attended the conference. Go watch the video. And, just FYI, there was no Chinese delegation at the Tehran Conference. They returned home with Chiang. This explains why nobody saw a Chinese delegation at the conference. None was there.

One, you obviously have not read Rothmiller and Thompson's book, or you'd know better than to make the claims you're making. McGovern, an emotionally attached super fan of Marilyn Monroe who can't even admit she was severely promiscuous or that she had affairs with Bobby and JFK, did not "demolish" Rothmiller. You must be kidding, but I know you're not. Two, whenever you question someone's ability "to judge the credibility of an author," readers need to be aware that you still claim that the anti-Semitic fraud Fletcher Prouty was not only a credible source but an outstanding and brilliant source. The guy was a crackpot who spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, speaking at their conferences and on their radio shows and praising the Holocaust-denying IHR journal and having a book published by the Holocaust-denying IHR press. He made numerous bogus claims and many downright nutty, bizarre claims. See my latest reply in the thread "Why L. Fletcher Prouty's Critics Are Wrong."

CE 843 is proof of fraud in the JFK autopsy evidence. CE 843 consists of three fragments that were supposedly removed from JFK's skull during the autopsy. However, these fragments look nothing like the fragments that Dr. James Humes said he removed from the skull and that appear on the autopsy skull x-rays. The 7x2 mm fragment is plainly visible on the AP x-ray, and it looks nothing like any of the fragments seen in CE 843. Moreover, Humes said he only removed two fragments, one 7x2 mm and the other 3x1 mm, not three. For those few researchers who still believe that the largest fragment that Humes removed was the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, CE 843 is equally problematic. The 6.5 mm object is perfectly round except for a neatly cut semi-circular notch on the bottom-right side (viewer's right). None of the three fragments in CE 843 looks like the 6.5 mm object, and no combination of those fragments could have formed the 6.5 mm object. The largest CE 843 fragment is roundish in its overall shape but it is not perfectly round; it has no semi-circular notch in it; and it has a virtually straight edge on the top-left side (viewer's left) that constitutes the fragment's longest side. Of course, we have known for years from multiple sets of OD measurements that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic but was superimposed over the image of a small fragment in the outer table in the back of the head, and even Dr. Larry Sturdivan has acknowledged that FMJ bullets will not deposit fragments on the outer table of a skull when they strike the skull. I had forgotten about the serious problems with CE 843 until someone inadvertently reminded me of them in an exchange about the 6.5 mm object yesterday. My memory refreshed, I also recalled that Dr. David Mantik had discussed this issue in some of his writings. CE 843 is also HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258. In his essay "The JFK Autopsy Materials" (LINK), Dr. Mantik provides images of CE 843 and the AP skull x-ray, and he says the following about the problems posed by the exhibit: This is one of the most shocking contradictions in the entire case. The shape of the larger piece of metal is nothing like the supposedly identical piece seen on the X-rays. No measurements taken on this piece can explain its bizarre transformation in shape. Most likely, it is not the piece taken from the skull. Its origin is unknown. John Hunt has much better quality images, obtained from NARA. Incidentally, I saw only two, not three, fragments at NARA. The largest, however, bears no resemblance to the corresponding image on the X-rays. The larger piece shown here is pancake shaped and was 107 mg. On the other hand, the X-rays show a club shaped object on both X-ray views (see Figures 2 and 6 above). The studies done by the FBI on this object spectrographic analysis and neutron activation analysis required only a tiny amount at most, about 1 mg, according to one of the FBI experts. (p. 15)

Oh, yeah, don't engage with someone who recognizes your theory for the embarrassing, nutty speculation that it is. Yeah, stay away from people who won't endorse your bizarre, paranoid theory. Tell me, do you believe the Moon landings were faked, that 9/11 was an inside job, that a missile hit the Pentagon and not an airliner, that the WTC towers were brought down with controlled demolitions, that Churchill had FDR poisoned, that Princess Diana was assassinated by the Secret Team? Just curious.

Yes. The evidence that RFK was at Marilyn's house that day is strong enough that even Anthony Summers acknowledges that he was there, even though he is an ardent supporter of the official finding of "probable suicide." Yet, we have people in this thread who insist that Bobby was not even in LA at the time.

As chance would have it, yesterday I stumbled upon the video of an interview that Fletcher Prouty gave in 1994 (LINK). Some of Prouty's comments about Vietnam and about Chiang Kai-shek's war with the Japanese were utterly erroneous, but I won't spend time discussing them. But I do want to discuss Prouty's astounding claim that he flew Chiang Kai-shek and his delegation to Tehran for the Tehran Conference and that Chiang attended the conference (along with FDR, Churchill, and Stalin) after he attended the Cairo Conference (starts at about 44:45). I have been studying Chiang Kai-shek, the Sino-Japanese War, World War II (especially the Asian and Pacific theaters), FDR's handling of the war, and the post-war struggle for China for many years. When I came across Prouty's astounding claim that Chiang attended the Tehran Conference, I replayed the segment three times to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding him. I wasn't: He claimed that he flew Chiang and his delegation to the Tehran Conference and that Chiang attended the conference. Some of the problems with this claim: -- Chiang's diary states that after he left the Cairo Conference, he returned to China. The Cairo Conference was held from 11/22/43 to 11/26/43. The Tehran Conference was held from 11/28/43 to 12/1/43. -- On his way home from Cairo, Chiang and his wife stopped at the U.S. Army's training center in Ramgarh, India, to inspect Chinese troops who were being trained there under General Stilwell's supervision. This visit occurred on 11/30/43 and was publicized. While there, Chiang addressed the Chinese troops. A copy of his address is in the Joseph Stilwell papers in the Online Archive of California (Collection A-22 1943, Box 50, Folder 9). -- Gen. Stilwell, who attended the Cairo Conference, said that Chiang returned to China after the conference. -- Not one of Chiang's biographers, friendly or critical, knew anything about Chiang attending the Tehran Conference. -- The biographies of Chiang written by his first and second wives say nothing about Chiang attending the Tehran Conference. If Chiang had been able to be at the conference, even in an unofficial capacity to hold off-the-record talks with the attendees, this would have been a significant honor and would have made Chiang look more important. The fact that no friendly biography of him mentions his alleged presence at the Tehran Conference is telling. -- Naturally, the Tehran Conference was swarming with journalists from all over the world. None of them spotted Chiang or his delegation at or near the conference. -- Not a single Soviet or British official or unofficial record of the Tehran Conference mentions Chiang's attendance or presence. -- Not a single U.S. State Department record of the Tehran Conference mentions Chiang as even being present, much less as being an attendee.

The Z224 lapel flip is probably an optical illusion. Even if it is not, it has nothing to do with the shooting because the bullet exited at least 11 inches from the lapel and 2 inches below the right nipple. There was a strong wind gusting in Dealey Plaza during the shooting. If the lapel flip is real, it was most likely caused by a gust of wind. However, ask yourself this: Is it physically possible for a lapel to flip up and then down in 1/18th of a second? Really?

Sometimes the official and/or MSM version of an event is correct. Not everything that is reported by the MSM is false. The idea that the MIC and/or the CIA assassinated John Lennon is just crazy. They had no conceivable motive, no reason to do so. The guy who shot Lennon admitted he shot him and explained why he shot him. Yes, this is "case closed." Can you imagine what your average educated person will think when they visit this forum as guests and see this kind of craziness taken seriously by members of the forum?

Now you're sounding like a WC apologist. Yes, of course Otash was bad and amoral. Many people who deal with or in the underworld and who agree to be informants are bad and amoral. Some of our most revealing accounts of CIA-Mafia cooperation and of CIA-Mafia involvement in JFK's death come from bad and amoral people. If Rothmiller's disclosures did not include information on JFK and RFK's serial adultery and on RFK's role in Marilyn Monroe's death, I suspect you would heartily welcome them, would acknowledge their importance, and would gladly recognize Rothmiller as one of the good guys. But, because Rothmiller's disclosures do include this information, you are determined to reject them and to discredit Rothmiller, and also to reject the Otash information in spite of the documentation that supports it. You would not be accusing Rothmiller of fabricating entries from Marilyn's diary if Rothmiller were not also revealing Bobby's role in Marilyn's death, nor would you so gullibly accept the Strasburg version of Marilyn's diary as "evidence" against Rothmiller's transcription of her diary. And it bears repeating that, while you reject and attack Rothmiller, you continue to claim that the anti-Semitic crackpot Fletcher Prouty was a sterling, credible source. You even attack scholars with impeccable liberal credentials just because they have exposed Prouty's bogus claims, his nuttiness, and his anti-Semitic views.

@Pat Speer Let's read what Humes told the WC about the largest fragment that he saw and removed. He specified that it was "just above" the right eye: These [the x-rays] had disclosed to us multiple minute fragments of radio opaque material traversing a line from the wound in the occiput to just above the right eye, with a rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye. (2 H 353) The 6.5 mm object is not above the right eye but is squarely within it on the AP x-ray. However, the 7x2 mm fragment is just an inch above the right eye. By the way, why is the EOP-to-right-eye fragment trail that Humes described to the WC, and in the autopsy report, nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? There's no way he could have mistaken the fragment trail at the top of the head for a trail that started at the EOP and ended just above the right eye. So where is this low fragment trail that Humes described? Oh, that's right: you insist that the x-rays have not been altered. Anyway, let's continue with Humes's WC testimony, in which he clearly identified the 7x2 mm fragment as the largest fragment that he saw and removed: SPECTER: When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President's right eye? HUMES: Yes, sir; above and somewhat behind the President's eye. . . . SPECTER: How large was that fragment, Dr. Humes? HUMES: . . . we found, in fact, two small fragments. . . . The larger of these measured 7x2 mm, the smaller 3x1 mm. (2 H 354) Sibert and O'Neill's report supports Humes's account: During the autopsy inspection of the area cf the brain two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. Humes, namely one fragment measuring 7x2 millimeters which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1x3 millimeters was also removed from this area. (p. 4) Importantly, the autopsy report notes that the two fragments were "irregularly shaped": Roentgenograms of this fragment reveal minute particles of metal in the bone at this margin Roentgenograms of the skull reveal multiple minute metallic fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge from the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered These measure 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm. (p. 4) The large roundish fragment in CE 843 is not irregular in shape. It's roundish with a virtually straight edge on its top-left side. The other fragment in CE 843 is nearly perfectly round but is much smaller than the larger roundish fragment. There is also a very tiny fragment, really a speck, in CE 843 that appears to be rectangular in shape. Obviously, no combination of these fragments would have formed the 6.5 mm object. Clearly, the fragments seen in CE 843 cannot be the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments described in the autopsy report, in the Sibert and O'Neill report, and in Humes's WC testimony. Your refusal to accept the OD measurements is both baffling and discrediting. OD measurement is a recognized science. Dr. Mantik uses OD measurements in his work as a radiation oncologist, and his background as a physicist makes him especially qualified to analyze the measurements. Dr. Chesser did his own OD measurements on the x-rays, and they confirmed Dr. Mantik's measurements. But you won't accept this historic development because you are determined to deny that any evidence was altered or planted. Finally, we should keep in mind that Dennis David, who was an experienced Petty Officer First Class and a Navy corpsman at the autopsy, told the ARRB that one of the federal agents at the autopsy dictated to him a receipt that described "in some detail" the physical characteristics of four bullet fragments that "had been removed from the President's body" (ARRB interview, 2/19/97, p. 2) Petty Officer David handled the fragments and said he believed they consisted of more metal than a single bullet but less than two bullets (p. 2).

Chapman was not 25 feet away. He was within 10 feet of Lennon when he opened fire. The autopsy report says Lennon was hit four times from behind, two in the back and two in the shoulder. This is all just crazy talk. Lennon was not "assassinated." He was murdered by a deranged fan of the Beatles. Chapman was a nobody. He confessed to the crime, for heaven's sake. And, pray tell, what wild theory do you have about motive? Why would the supposed conspiracy that allegedly assassinated Lennon have wanted to assassinate him and then frame Chapman for the crime in December 1980?

The large fragment in evidence is not perfectly round with a neatly cut notch on the bottom-right side. That fragment can be seen in CE 843. Surely you can see that it is not perfectly round and does not have a notch neatly cut from the bottom-right side (viewer's right). We're not playing horseshoes here. The fragment is roundish but it is clearly not the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP x-ray, not to mention that multiple OD measurements, which you just keep ignoring, prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. Yes, I happen to agree that the large fragment in CE 843 does not look like the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray, nor does it measure 7x2 mm. This is revealing because it is very hard to fathom how Humes could have mistaken that fragment for a 7x2 mm fragment. I suspect someone switched out the 7x2 mm fragment with the large fragment in CE 843. When the ARRB asked Boswell about the 6.5 mm object, he said he was "sure" they did not find a fragment that large: We did not find one that large. I'm sure of that. (ARRB deposition, 2/26/96, p. 197) When Finck was interviewed by the ARRB and was asked if he recalled seeing a fragment as large as the 6.5 mm object, he said, "I don't" (ARRB deposition, 5/24/96, p. 132). Finck confirmed that there was a radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, and that it was his job to interpret the x-rays (p. 88). But according to you, even Ebersole "missed" the most obvious fragment-like object on the AP x-ray, even thought it is perfectly round except for a neatly cut notch in its bottom-right side, clearly proving that it is a manmade object. (On a side note, Finck also confirmed that the rear head entry wound was in the occiput, and that he had photos taken of the exterior and interior of the wound [pp. 85-87]. Where are those photos?) We've already noted that Humes likewise said he was certain that none of the fragments he removed was as large as the 6.5 mm object. Humes did in fact identify the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray as the largest fragment that he removed, not the slice that you have identified as the largest fragment. Humes, Boswell, Finck, and Ebersole, not to mention the other doctors who could see the skull x-rays during the autopsy, would have had to be legally blind to miss the 6.5 mm object. They didn't miss it. It just wasn't on the x-rays during autopsy. That's why Humes was clear on the fact that the 7x2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray was the "largest fragment" that he saw and removed. And anyone can readily see on the AP x-ray that the 6.5 mm object is about 1 inch below and to the right of the 7x2 mm fragment. The three ARRB medical experts, the twelve HSCA medical experts (nine members and three consultants), and the four Clark Panel medical experts all placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, as you should know. So does Dr. Mantik, Dr. Aguilar, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Sturdivan. Finally, it is worth repeating that not a single expert who has examined the skull x-rays has identified your slice as a bullet fragment.

No SSA etc ever revealed that Hickey fired. One SSA said that the AR15 had not been fired (Floyd Boring). But we're not just talking about the other agents in the follow-up car. Kenny O'Donnell and Dave Powers were in that car. When O'Donnell revealed to Tip O'Neill that he had lied during his WC testimony and that he was certain some shots came from the grassy knoll, one would think that he would have also mentioned that one of the agents in the car fired his rifle if Hickey had in fact fired his rifle. I have fired the AR-15 rifle many times. It is quite loud. When I fired the rifle in the Army, we were required to use ear plugs to protect our hearing. I cant remember the details of Holland's ricochet theory, except that it was mostly silly, except that he was the first to realize that shot-1 had ricocheted offa the signal arm, at pseudo Z103 i think he said (i dont think he said Z132). He says the first shot was fired during the 3-4-second gap between Z132 and Z133, or about 11.2-15.2 seconds before Z313. He puts the shooting time at 11.2 seconds, which means he's assuming the shot came a frame or two before Z133. Also, we should keep in mind that even in this lone-gunman scenario, the gunman still would have had to go two for two in 5.6 seconds, something that not even the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were able to do. Firing when the 2" signal arm was possibly in the way was certainly silly, especially the two 3/4" guy rods & coupler (shot-1 hit a guyrod), especially the red yellow green signals & backboard. In 2013 Christopher who owns the original RYG signals & backboard confirmed that there is no bullet damage. Well, yeah, if Oswald was half the rifleman that the WC claimed he was, he would not have fired with a metal pole intervening near JFK's upper body in his sight view, not to mention that the angle would have been virtually straight down. Even a gunman with minimal experience would not have fired at that time.

Another noteworthy fact that Rothmiller reveals in Bombshell is that he saw an LAPD OCID file that stated that 10 bullets were recovered from the shooting of RFK, and he notes that this was two more bullets than Sirhan's gun could have fired. Rothmiller testified about the OCID file and the 10 bullets in 1992 at a grand jury hearing. Some here may be interested to know that Rothmiller also testified on behalf of the ACLU in its lawsuit against OCID's illegal spying, and he testified to the LA Police Commission about corruption in the LAPD and about OCID's illegal surveillance practices. His testimony led to the commission's first efforts to reform the LAPD. Rothmiller's 1992 book LA Secret Police led to another investigation by the LA Police Commission and caused more efforts at cleaning up the LAPD. Rothmiller says that Marilyn's journal and OCID files showed that on the night of her death, she phoned Mexican actor and one-time lover Jose Bolanos. Rothmiller's transcription from Marilyn's journal says that she called Bolanos and told him she was going to hold a press conference and expose her affairs with RFK and JFK, and that Bolanos urged her not to do this and warned her that it would be dangerous. Years later, Bolanos admitted that he spoke with Marilyn that evening and that she told him something that he said would "shock the whole world," but he declined to reveal what it was. Support for Rothmiller's account also comes from Marilyn's hairdresser, Sidney Guilaroff, who reported that on the night of Marilyn's death, he spoke with her on the phone and that she told him she knew a lot of dangerous secrets about the Kennedys. In Rothmiller's postscript in the book, he mentions that before he saw Marilyn's diary and the OCID files on Marilyn's death, he was an admirer of JFK and RFK, and that a portrait of JFK still hangs in his house: I had always admired the Kennedys and was saddened when they were murdered. My wife and I purchased a portrait of President Kennedy in the 1970s and it is still on display in our home. President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy did a great amount of good for the country. Yet, in this situation, I was a detective and had to follow the evidence. So, personally, it was a painful investigation, but it had to be done. I wished the facts proved otherwise, but they didn't, and it saddens me. (p. 328) Finally, the disclosures of RFK and JFK's affairs with Marilyn, RFK's role in her death, and JFK's possible foreknowledge and possible actions as an accessory after the fact (mainly just staying quiet and taking no action against Bobby)--these disclosures do not mean we must wholly repudiate and condemn RFK and JFK. Yes, these disclosures are a serious black mark on RFK's and JFK's legacies, especially on Bobby's. If they couldn't persuade Marilyn not to go public about their sexual affairs, then they should have faced the consequences of their actions, even it meant having to resign in disgrace, instead of killing her. But it also fair to point out that Marilyn was being unreasonable and was putting JFK and RFK in an extraordinarily difficult situation. She should have readily understood why JFK and RFK had to break off relations with her. She should have known that Bobby would never leave his wife and marry her (Bobby never should have made such a promise in the first place). Since she was interested in politics and followed international affairs, she should have known that revealing the national security information that JFK had foolishly shared with her would cause an international uproar and would damage America's image in the world. And she certainly should have understood that women who chose to sleep with powerful prominent men were expected to keep those affairs private. In the final analysis, RFK and JFK's actions in relation to Marilyn Monroe, as immoral and inexcusable as they were, must be weighed against the many good things that JFK and Bobby did for tens of millions of people, and not just for people in America but for people in many other parts of the world. Their actions regarding Marilyn Monroe were no excuse for the plotters to execute them. The plotters not only executed JFK and Bobby but also murdered dozens of people who, in their view, "knew too much" and "posed too great of a risk."

Marjan and Holland both reject a conspiracy and both reject the acoustical evidence, so they don't care that the DPD dictabelt did not record a burst of semi-automatic gunfire from the follow-up car. And it boggles the mind to try to imagine how a bullet that glanced off the bottom of the guy rod could have sent a fragment streaking toward the Tague curb and also sent fragments toward the pavement behind the limousine that could have ricocheted upward and hit JFK in the back of the head (to account for the back-of-head fragments seen on the autopsy x-rays, since we know that no FMJ bullet would have deposited fragments on the outer table of the skull).

And the fact that nobody who was in the car with Hickey heard him fire his rifle? Were they all lying? O'Donnell spilled his beans to Tip O'Neill years later, revealing that he heard shots from the knoll, but even then he said nothing about Hickey firing his rifle. AR-15s are rather loud. If Hickey had fired his, everyone in his car would have heard it. Holland's "first-shot" ricochet theory is far fetched. Holland apparently never stopped to consider that firing a shot before Z133 would have required a virtually straight-down angle of fire. Frazier explained that even a shot fired at Z161 from the sixth-floor window would have required a downward angle of 40 degrees. A sixth-floor gunman firing during the 3-4-second gap between Z132 and Z133, as Holland theorizes, would have had to fire at an even sharper downward angle, practically straight down. And why in the world would any sixth-floor gunman have fired at JFK when the traffic signal's guy arm was close to JFK in his field of view/sight view? It just makes no sense.

You are the one who keeps ignoring key facts, including the fact that (1) 27 medical experts have placed the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, and (2) that Humes himself said that the "largest fragment" he removed was the 7x2 mm fragment. So obviously the 6.5 mm object could not be the largest fragment that Humes removed. You also keep ignoring the OD measurements. Those measurements, done separately by Mantik and Chesser, prove that the 6.5 mm object is not metallic. That fact alone refutes your bizarre, amateurish arguments. You also keep ignoring the fact that both Humes and Boswell said that not one of the bullet fragments they saw on the x-rays during the autopsy were as large as the 6.5 mm object. And they were not the only ones looking at the x-rays. Ebersole, the radiologist, was there, and he never said a word about seeing the object. Here is what Dr. Mantik says about the object that you identify on the lateral x-rays as the partner image for the 6.5 mm object: The so-called “slice” that Speer identifies on the lateral X-ray (my Figure 4) is the ultimate “boner” (Speer himself introduced this pun—see p. 18). No expert has ever identified that site as a piece of metal. Even Speer, if he had viewed the extant X-rays, would not have made such a blooper. The discussion that follows from his misidentification should just be ignored—totally. The reader should simply ask himself a simple question: Who is more likely to be correct—an amateur who has viewed only prints or zillions of experts, who have seen the X-rays? It is true that phrases (some by Humes, but others have contributed, too—see pp. 24-26) have imprecisely located the 7x2 mm fragment (Speer’s club), but the bottom line is simple: despite the semantic fog, there is really only one large metallic fragment under discussion--and it’s not the “slice” cited by Speer. His “slice” is just a bone spicule, certainly not metal. It has nothing to do with the case, except that it might have resulted from trauma. The only authentic large metal fragment involved in the autopsy is the 7x2 mm one (identified in my Figures 1 and 2), which Humes removed. Speer might also want to read again his own quotes from Humes (p. 25), about the 6.5 mm object: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you?” And this one too: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” ("Speer Critique," p. 13, https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf) Regarding your claim that Dr. Mantik does not locate the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, he notes, as I have, that you are misrepresenting his position: Speer claims that I insist the 6.5 mm object is not visible on the back of the head. This is scarcely an accurate portrayal of my work. On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that the location of OTF (on the lateral X-ray) correlates extremely well with the 6.5 mm object on the AP X-ray. So do virtually all experts who have viewed these films. The real issue is slightly, but seriously, different: Are the ODs of this thing consistent from one view to another? That answer is clearly, “No,” as even the ARRB experts readily emphasized. But Speer is relentless—he then also takes Horne to task for misrepresenting the situation. Somehow, though, Speer has still missed the point—it’s all about the inconsistent ODs, not the 3D coordinates (which do match). ("Speer Critique," p. 14) There is a fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray that matches the location and size of the fragment on the A-P. This fragment is consistent, moreover, with the size and shape of the fragment retrieved at autopsy, as first photographed by the FBI. So it's not really the mystery some pretend it is. As Mantik observes, not a single expert who has studied the x-rays has identified that object as a bullet fragment. Not one. Plus, we have the largest fragment that Humes said he removed, and it looks nothing like the 6.5 mm object. It is not a perfect circle with a neat notch chipped from its bottom-right side. It is astounding that you continue to ignore this fact. @Eddy Bainbridge

Here is a free five-minute sample of the audio book of Bombshell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5X7bnJKvA A few points to keep in mind: -- We actually have the notes that Rothmiller wrote while he was reading Marilyn's diary. Portions are reprinted in Rothmiller and Thompson's book. Some of the notes are on the back LAPD documents. When Rothmiller was able to quote the diary, i.e., to write down verbatim what he was reading in the diary, he did so. When he could not do so, he would write down what he had read as soon as possible after he had read it. -- Rothmiller used Otash as an informant. He interviewed Otash before deciding to use him as an informant. -- When Rothmiller interviewed Otash, Otash told him what he heard on the surveillance recordings from Marilyn and Lawford's houses. The account that Otash gave to Rothmiller of what he heard on the tapes closely resembles the account that Lawford gave to Rothmiller when he confessed to Rothmiller in 1982. -- Thompson was able to confirm many parts of Rothmiller's story by interviewing former LAPD officials and other sources. -- About 10 years ago, 11 boxes that Otash had kept in a storage unit were made available by Otash's daughter for review by The Hollywood Reporter. Notes found in the boxes include an account that confirms that RFK was in Marilyn's home on the day she died and that Bobby and Marilyn had a fierce argument. Here is a news account of the release of the boxes: Eleven boxes of recently uncovered documents and notes expose, among previously mentioned scandals, a confrontation between Robert F. Kennedy, JFK’s brother-in-law Peter Lawford, and Monroe on the day Monroe died. Otash’s daughter Colleen gave these boxes to The Hollywood Reporter in hopes that the distorted interpretations of her father’s life would be righted. Otash’s notes also detail his time spent as contracted security for actress Judy Garland in which he discovered caches of drugs in her homestead. (https://www.sacurrent.com/arts/fred-otashs-noir-sex-murder-and-hollywood-confessions-2253889) -- Otash's notes found in the boxes also confirm that he installed listening devices in Marilyn's home and in Lawford's home, and that he heard JFK and Marilyn engaging in sexual activity. On a side note, the Otash materials include a transcript of Rock Hudson's wie confronting him over being a homosexual. -- According to Otash, and according to what Rothmiller saw in OCID files, Bobby called JFK at least once on the day Marilyn died, and JFK asked Bobby to call him back after he met with Marilyn. Thus, it is entirely possible that JFk was aware of Bobby's role in Marilyn's death. Finally, the disclosures about Bobby's role in Marilyn's death do not automatically prove that Bobby and JFK were cold-blooded murderers. This is not to excuse what Bobby did, but it is fair point out that Marilyn was going to not only reveal her affairs with the two brothers but was also going to reveal national security secrets that they had (recklessly) shared with her. She was going to reveal, for example, JFK's desire and intent to assassinate Castro. This revelation alone would have had created an international firestorm. Two other people who claim they heard the Otash tapes of Bobby and Marilyn's confrontations that day claim that Bobby pointed out to Marilyn that he and JFK had to stop seeing her because they feared what J. Edgar Hoover would do, that seeing her again could be dangerous for him and JFK. But Marilyn did not care about any of this. Marilyn, understandably, felt used and exploited, like she'd been passed around as a toy and was now being cast aside. She also felt betrayed because Bobby had told her that he was going to divorce his wife and marry Marilyn. But surely Marilyn should have known that it was an understood unwritten rule that if you were going to play around with powerful people, you would keep this activity to yourself and would never reveal it as long as it could harm any of those people. Again, this is not to excuse what Bobby did and JFK's possible foreknowledge and possible role as an accomplice after the fact. Bobby should have been prosecuted for his role in Marilyn's death, and he should have spent at least 10 years in jail for it. And if JFK did in fact have foreknowledge and/or act as an accomplice after the fact, he should have been prosecuted and spent a few years, perhaps five years, in jail.

The accounts of Dr. James Young and x-ray tech Jerrol Custer are not the only accounts of a bullet/large fragment at the autopsy that WC apologists must dismiss with the lame claim that they were mistaken or lying, even though Young's account was corroborated by Chief Mills and even though Young and Custer had no conceivable motive for lying. We also have the account of Captain David Osborne, who was Chief of Surgery at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and attended the autopsy. During the HSCA investigation, then-Admiral Osborne told HSCA investigators that when JFK's body was lifted from the coffin and placed on the autopsy table, an intact bullet fell out of JFK's clothing and onto the autopsy table. The HSCA pathology panel's report claimed that Osborne expressed doubt about his account after being told that JFK's body did not arrive clothed but was wrapped in sheets and that no one else at the autopsy recalled seeing a bullet at the autopsy. But when David Lifton interviewed Osborne, Osborne rejected the panel's claim. Notes Dr. Donald Thomas, When author David Lifton located and interviewed Admiral Osborne, now the Deputy Surgeon General, he was given a different version of the conversation. Osborne denied ever having expressed doubts to the Committee's investigators about seeing the bullet. On the contrary, he had not only seen the bullet, but had held the projectile, which he described as an "intact bullet," "not deformed in any way," in his hands. Osborne maintains that the bullet was taken by Secret Service agents (perhaps thus explaining the evening time on Johnsen's receipt). Osborne related that when he spoke to the Committee's investigators he only admitted to being mistaken about the bullet falling out of the President's clothing.85 If the President was wrapped in a sheet, then he had seen the bullet fall out of a sheet, not clothing. (Hear No Evil, p. 406) So Osborne, then a Navy Captain and the Chief of Surgery at the hospital, actually handled the bullet. Are we to believe that Osborne actually only handled the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from JFK's skull and misrecalled them as a bullet when interviewed by the HSCA? Then what did he see fall onto the autopsy table? He said he handled the bullet that fell onto the autopsy table. Similarly, Dr. Young inspected the bullet that was found in the limousine by two Navy corpsmen, and one of those corpsmen, Chief Mills, confirmed that he found the bullet in the rear of the limousine. As for the receipt for a "missle" recovered at the autopsy and the dubious explanation that the receipt was referring to a few tiny slivers, one can only wonder why the receipt was excluded from the WC volumes. The autopsy report says a receipt for the two fragments removed by Humes was attached to the report, but the "missle" receipt was not only not attached to the autopsy report, it was not even included in the WC volumes but was buried in the National Archives. Harold Weisberg learned of the receipt's existence in 1966, but it took him three years and a FOIA submission to get a copy of it. Now why was this receipt excluded from the WC volumes and only released after a FOIA submission? Furthermore, when asked about the receipt by the HSCA, over a decade after the fact, Sibert and O'Neill said they thought it referred to the two tiny fragments that Humes removed from JFK's skull, i.e., the 7x2 mm and 3x1 mm fragments. So two tiny slivers were a missile? Dr. Thomas makes some good points about the receipt: That being the case it is difficult to imagine what sort of document could be more suggestive of the presence of a bullet at the autopsy than a receipt for a "missle"[sic] recovered at the autopsy. The existence of the receipt was discovered in 1966 and then obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by critic Harold Weisberg in 1969. The two FBI agents responsible for taking possession of evidence at the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis O'Neill signed the receipt addressed to Commander R.H. Stover, which states: "We hereby acknowledge receipt for a missle removed by Commander James J. Humes MC, USN on this date." Notably, the receipt states that the "missle" was "removed" by Humes, as if it were removed from the body. The FBI agents, when queried about the meaning of this receipt by the HSCA, maintained that the receipt referred to the two tiny slivers of metal recovered from the President's brain. The Assassinations Committee was prepared to accept this explanation, without comment, and pretend that there were no documents to indicate the presence of a bullet at the autopsy. According to the official autopsy report and the testimony of the chief autopsy surgeon James Humes, there were only two fragments of metal removed from President Kennedy. The FBI report also specified, "During the autopsy [and} inspection of the area of the brain, two fragments of metal were removed by Dr. HUMES, namely, one fragment measuring 7 x 2 millimeters, which was removed from the right side of the brain. An additional fragment of metal measuring 1 x 3 millimeters was also removed from this area, both of which were placed in a glass jar containing a black metal top which were thereafter marked for identification and following the signing of a proper receipt were transported by bureau agents to the FBI Laboratory." It is the opinion of this author that a receipt for "a missle" is not a proper receipt for two tiny slivers of metal. Furthermore, the FBI spectrographic report indicates that four pieces of metal, not two, were recovered at the autopsy -- at least, they tested four pieces of metal supposedly recovered at the President's autopsy. Moreover, Sibert and O'Neil insist that they did not type the receipt, but rather it was typed by hospital personnel. (Hear No Evil, pp. 405-406) You would think that at some point, sooner or later, deep in their minds, even WC apologists would have to say to themselves, "Wait a minute. ALL of these credible witnesses could not have been 'mistaken.' How would anyone handle two tiny fragments and ever describe them as an undamaged bullet or as a misshapen bullet? This just don't seem reasonable. It seems mighty unlikely that ALL of these people were mistaken or lying."