Michael Griffith

One thought is that if this issue reached a point where it had to be confronted, they could have said that Oswald was occasionally hanging around anti-Castro Cubans because he was trying to penetrate the anti-Castro movement to find out what he could about it, but that his real sympathies were for Castro and his Marxist regime.

You are referring to the first critique of the acoustical evidence. It was written by FBI agent Bruce Koenig. Simply put, Koenig didn't know what he was talking about. He apparently did not even read the BBN report, or else he didn't understand it or purposely misrepresented it, and he clearly had no clue about Weiss and Aschkenasy's analysis. That is a problematic exercise because of the factors I discuss in the first post. One factor is that since the field test only fired shots from the sixth-floor window and a spot on the grassy knoll, there were no impulse-pattern data on shots from other locations. There is also the fact that there are strong indications that the Zapruder film was edited shortly after the assassination.

Of course, some conspiracy theorists reject the acoustical evidence because they believe it has been refuted by the Decker "hold everything" crosstalk and/or by the inability to positively identify which motorcycle recorded the sounds on the police tape. These have never been good arguments against the acoustical evidence because they ignore the truly remarkable evidentiary correlations documented by the HSCA acoustical experts. We can start with the fact that gunfire N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes are recorded on the tape. In addition, the N-waves only occur among the identified gunshot impulses and only when the motorcycle's microphone was in position to record them. This is a stunning correlation. But it gets better: the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes also occur in the correct order and interval. Try to fathom the odds that these correlations are merely coincidences among sounds caused by human speech, as some critics have amateurishly claimed. I think these correlations alone prove that some microphone in Dealey Plaza must have recorded the impulses, because N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes do not just magically appear on recordings out of thin air, much less in the correct order and interval. In his article "The Bike with the Mike," Dr. Don Thomas makes a credible case that McClain's bike was the bike with the open microphone, and in the process he responds to Dale Myers' claims about McClain's position (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_Bike_With_the_Mike.html). The HSCA experts from BBN knew that if they were dealing with impulse patterns caused by gunfire, each of the sounds would come in a specific order: they knew that the N-wave would come first, followed by the muzzle blast, followed by echoes of the shock wave and the muzzle blast. They also knew that the presence of these patterns would depend on whether the microphone was in position to record them. The BBN scientists screened all of the impulse patterns on the police tape for N-wave-like characteristics (some critics have wrongly claimed that only certain patterns were screened). Keep in mind, too, that the BBN experts did not have the test-firing data yet, so they did not know that those data would powerfully support the presence of gunfire on the tape. But even without the field-test data, being acoustical scientists, they understood the general characteristics of N-waves and how they would appear on an oscillogram printout of a recording. And they found that the N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes only occur among the identified gunshot impulse patterns, and that they occur in the correct order and interval. By the way, the NRC panel--aka the NAS panel--did not lay a finger on this impressive evidence. The NRC panel also failed to address the remarkable windshield- distortion correlations. The HSCA experts tested for the effect of windshield distortions and then analyzed the dictabelt to see if such distortions were recorded on the tape. They not only found that windshield distortions occur in the police tape's gunshot impulse patterns but that they only occur when the motorcycle was in position to allow them to occur, and that they do not occur when the motorcycle was not in position to allow them to occur. Again, the NRC panel did not even attempt to explain these correlations. The HSCA experts proved that at least four of the gunshot impulses on the dictabelt recording have echo patterns that are unique to Dealey Plaza (incidentally, the rejected fifth gunshot at 140.32 also passed the echo-correlation or echo-delay test). Critics can offer no plausible explanation for these echo correlations. These correlations are the reason that acoustical expert Aschkenasy noted that if the police microphone did in fact record the sounds on the tape in a different location, that location would have to be an exact replica of Dealey Plaza. The HSCA acoustical experts found remarkable timing-movement correlations between the five suspect dictabelt impulses and five Dealey Plaza test shots. Not only do they match in sequence, but they also match in spacing and distance. The sequence match alone is impressive, since there are 120 ways to order five events. The odds of randomly ordering five events in the correct sequence are 1 in 120, or less than 1%, and this is not considering the correlations in spacing and distance. Even the NRC panel obliquely admitted that their own calculations showed that the odds that these correlations resulted from chance were only 7%. And, even the hard-nosed historian Dr. David Kaiser finds these timing-movement correlations impressive and impossible to dismiss. And we should remember that sonar analysis enabled Weiss and Aschkenasy to reduce the acceptance window for matching a dictabelt impulse with a test-firing shot from 6 milliseconds down to 1 millisecond, a 500% narrower window, which vastly reduced the possibility of a false match for the grassy knoll shot. 1 millisecond is one one-thousandth of a second. To be counted as a match, a dictabelt impulse and a test-shot echo pattern had to correspond to each other within the incredibly short timeframe of 1 millisecond As for the Decker "hold everything" crosstalk transmission, this has never been a good argument because the Decker transmission is not a reliable time indicator, much less a determinative one. The time offsets alone indicate that the "hold everything" transmission is not a reliable time marker. Other transmissions are more compelling time markers, and they show that the shots occurred at the correct time. Critics have ignored these other transmissions, even though (or because) they all show the gunshot impulses were recorded during the assassination, and instead they have accepted the lone Decker transmission as determinative. One of those other transmissions is also a crosstalk transmission. It is Deputy Chief Fisher’s “I’ll check” transmission, which occurs 2 seconds before the first dictabelt gunshot on Channel 1, and about 8 seconds before the 12:30 time notation on Channel 2. The Fisher crosstalk puts the time of the dictabelt gunshots during the assassination. Ironically, critics claim that the Fisher transmission is not crosstalk, even though the Dallas police officers who prepared the transcripts of the tape cited it as a prime example of crosstalk. And then there's Chief Curry’s “triple underpass” transmission, which occurs 6 seconds before the 12:30 time notation on Channel 2 and 2 seconds after Deputy Chief Fisher’s “I’ll check” transmission. Chief Curry’s “triple underpass” transmission and the first dictabelt gunshot occur virtually at the same time. Curry’s “to the hospital” transmission occurs 12 seconds after the 12:30 time notation on Channel 2. This is key evidence because we know that Curry made the “to the hospital” transmission while still in Dealey Plaza, shortly after he heard gunfire. I think the tests that Josiah Thompson arranged to have done at BBN prove once and for all that the Decker "hold everything" crosstalk is not a valid time indicator but is a meaningless anomaly. Thompson discusses these tests and their results in great detail in his recent book Last Second in Dallas. By the way, his book includes two analyses written by BBN acoustical experts.

Because some would rather pretend the photos are fake etc than acknowledge that the medical evidence to which we've gained access proves the WC's conclusions were doo-doo. I don't think anyone is "pretending" that "the photos are fake." And the "medical evidence to which we've gained access" is a mixed bag. Some of it supports the WC's conclusions. Some of it does not. Some of it is neutral. You keep over-simplifying and mispresenting the position of those who question the autopsy evidence. We do not say that it is all fake. We do say that some of the x-rays have been altered, that photos and x-rays are missing, that the brain photos are clearly not of JFK's brain, and that some of the photos do not show how the wounds looked during the autopsy. On the other hand, you wave aside hard physical evidence whenever it conflicts with the autopsy photos. You wave aside massive eyewitness evidence whenever it conflicts with the autopsy x-rays and photos. And you wave aside scientific evidence that the skull x-rays have been altered.

The rear clothing holes prove the wound was at or very near T3, not T1. Substantial eyewitness testimony agrees with this physical-evidence-based placement. The autopsy photo is not reliable because JFK's head is tilted considerably backward and his right shoulder is also manipulated. I essentially agree with you about the need to assume that JFK was leaning far forward when the HSCA's alleged SBT hit occurred. Baden demonstrated this for all to see in a documentary, leaning markedly forward to show how the bullet could have entered the back at a slightly upward angle and still have exited the throat and hit Connally. Yes, it is hokum, pure hokum. And, yes, the HSCA also said, correctly, that this shot was fired at Z186-190, about one second before JFK passed behind the road sign. I seriously doubt that Rankin was referring to the dot on the autopsy face sheet.

Marcello uttered one of his admissions to a nurse in a circumstance that suggested no bragging was involved. The guy who was arrested for acting suspiciously while coming out of the Dal-Tex Building, Eugene Hale Brading, was a Mafia guy, and both Brading and Ruby visited the building that housed the offices of the Hunt brothers on 11/21/63. Brading's traveling companion to Dallas was Morgan Brown, another Mafia guy. Rose Cheramie said that the two men who dumped her on the road after telling her about JFK's upcoming assassination were Mafia guys. OTOH, I do agree that the LHO biography build was a CIA op. The impersonation of Oswald in Mexico City was obviously a CIA op. The Silvia Odio incident proves that CIA-backed anti-Castro Cubans were involved in the biography build. The post-assassination attempts to use Oswald's pro-Castro posturing to provoke an invasion of Cuba came from the CIA. The CIA's fingerprints are all over the editing of the Zapruder film, as we now know. But some key actions did not involve the CIA. The suspiciously timely removal of Oswald's name from the FBI's security watch list was the FBI's doing. The stripping of presidential security in Dallas was done by the Secret Service. The Secret Service was aware of the altering of some of the medical evidence and was involved in facilitating the alteration of the Zapruder film. The Secret Service bullied the Dallas coroner and illegally took the body before an autopsy could be performed. Some FBI agents falsified witness interview reports. The DPD suppressed evidence and knowingly allowed Ruby to shoot Oswald. Etc., etc. etc.

Except that Marcello revealed to an FBI informant that he played a key role in the assassination, and that Trafficante revealed, at the very least, foreknowledge of the hit. Plus, there is Jack Ruby, who essentially worked for Marcello. There is also David Ferrie, who was closely linked with Marcello. And, the Mafia and the CIA both ardently wanted Castro removed from power. We broadly agree that CIA and Mafia elements were involved in the assassination. We just disagree about the particulars of what that involvement looked like.

Some conspiracy theorists reject, minimize, or ignore the HSCA acoustical evidence only because they believe it does not support their shooting scenario, even though it refutes the lone-gunman theory. Specifically, they do not accept the duration and timing of the shots on the police dictabelt and/or they think the tape requires them to believe that only four shots were fired, that three of those shots came from the TSBD's sixth-floor southeast corner window, and that only one shot came from the grassy knoll. However, the acoustical evidence does not require acceptance of all of these positions. It is crucial to understand that the four impulse patterns that the HSCA acoustical experts identified as shots on the police tape were identified as gunfire because they matched the impulse patterns of four shots fired during the HSCA field test in Dealey Plaza, and that during that test, shots were fired from only two locations: the sixth-floor window and the grassy knoll. During the HSCA test firing, no shots were fired from any window in the Dal-Tex Building or the County Records Building, or from any other alternative point in the plaza, but only from the sixth-floor window and from a spot behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll. In addition, a fifth impulse pattern on the dictabelt was arguably wrongly rejected as gunfire. Due to pressure from the HSCA, the BBN experts identified the impulse pattern at 140.32 as a false alarm, even though it passed the echo-delay matching test, and even though 8 of its 10 impulses matched the impulses of one of the test shots. The BBN experts said they rejected this impulse pattern as a shot because it occurs just 1.07 seconds after the second shot from the sixth-floor window, and because it "only" had one microphone match and "only" had a coefficient score of 0.6. A coefficient score of 0.6 means that 8 of the 10 impulses in the impulse pattern matched the impulses of a pattern of one of the field-test shots. The rejection of the 140.32 impulse pattern as gunfire seems to have been based on something other than science. As Dr. Don Thomas says, The fifth shot was dismissed because five shots were less palatable to the committee members than four shots. Palatability is not, however, a scientific criterion for judging the validity of evidence. Moreover, it was illogical to dismiss the pattern at 140.32 as a false positive because it was too close to the previous shot. The first two putative shots are only 1.7 sec apart, also too close together to have been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle. (https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History_-_part_2.html) Furthermore, if there was a third gunman and he used a silencer or fired from a point five or six feet behind a window, even if the HSCA field test had fired shots from his location or from a nearby location, either his shots would have created no impulse patterns on the tape or they would have created patterns that were too weak to be matched to test-shot patterns.

Yes. Also, perhaps Specter was relying on the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, or perhaps he was using the death certificate, or perhaps he was using the same autopsy photo that J. Lee Rankin viewed during the 1/27/64 WC executive session, which Rankin said showed that "the bullet entered below the shoulder blade." Specter could have used any number of sources that placed the wound at/near the chalk mark, including, of course, the rear clothing holes.

I think we can all agree that the cover-up clearly was not a Mafia operation. The Mafia may have silenced some of the witnesses, either on their own or at the request of their intelligence liaisons, but the Mafia could not have chosen the autopsy doctors, influenced the conduct of the autopsy, altered and suppressed medical evidence, suppressed evidence of an extra bullet found in the limo, etc.

Because he decided to go with the location established by the rear clothing holes? Because he could see that the wound's location in the autopsy photo is unreliable since he could see that JFK's head is tilted backward and the shoulder is raised for the photo? We can theorize all day about why Specter put the mark where he did, assuming he's the one who put it there, but the fact remains (1) that the chalk mark is clearly well below the wound seen in the autopsy photo, and (2) that the chalk mark corresponds closely with the rear clothing holes.

It is often overlooked that when the BBN acoustical scientists began their analysis of the dictabelt recording, they did not know that the speed of the motorcycle with the open mike matched the speed of the motorcade. They only realized the speeds matched after they asked the HSCA for the speed of the motorcade. We learn this from Dr. Scott Robinson, one of the BBN experts: We didn’t know what the speed of the motorcade was. And he [Dr. Barger] called somebody at the select committee and asked them to tell him what the speed of the motorcade was. And they looked in their records and told him. And it turned out the speeds matched. And that’s when things got pretty convincing. (LINK, 2:25-3:20) We should also keep in mind that when Weiss and Aschkenasy first heard the dictabelt recording, they strongly doubted that it contained gunfire: Mr. WEISS. We had no preconception as to what we were going to find. If anything, when we first heard the tape recording and first began to examine the data, our initial reaction was, somebody has got to be kidding; this can't be gunshots. But as we examined the data more carefully, subjected it to all the tests that we have described, the procedures that we have described, the results of the analyses themselves convinced us of where we were heading. Obviously, we did not have any plan or any objective other than to do the best we could to find out what really these data represent. Mr. ASCHKENASY. If I may-- Mr. FITHIAN . Yes, Sir; go ahead. Mr. ASCHKENASY. If I may say just one line, it's that the numbers could not be refuted. That was our problem. The numbers just came back again and again the same way, pointing only in one direction, as to what these findings were. There just didn't seem to be any way to make those numbers go away, no matter how hard we tried. (5 HSCA 593)

You cannot be serious. How can you say with a straight face that the chalk mark matches the location of the back wound seen in the autopsy photos? How? It is not even close. Here again we confront your refusal to admit that any of the autopsy photos and x-rays were either altered, faked, or taken after the body was manipulated to give a false visual impression. Look at the side-by-side comparison below. Look how far below the line of the top of the right shoulder blade the chalk mark is compared to the back wound in the autopsy photo. The autopsy photo shows the wound only slightly below, perhaps 1 inch below, the level of the top of the right shoulder blade, whereas the chalk mark is plainly and clearly at least 3 inches below the level of the top of the right shoulder blade. Anyone with two functioning eyes can see this.

When I first saw "Red Alert," I thought the thread was giving notice of an impending speech by Bernie Sanders or AOC.

Yes, this is obviously what happened. Not only do the brain photos show no damage to the lower part of the brain, but they show virtually no brain tissue missing, whereas there is overwhelming evidence, including the x-rays, that nearly one half of the brain was blown away, if not more. The point cannot be stressed enough that if the brain photos are genuine, the EOP entry site is impossible. Yet, there is strong evidence that a bullet entered at the EOP site, so much so that even Larry Sturdivan rejected the CP-HSCA higher entry point and argued for the EOP site. This is also a good example of the mistakes that the plotters made in the cover-up. At the time, they believed the autopsy materials and the other unpublished WC records would remain sealed for 75 years. This was the law at the time for all unpublished records of federal executive branch investigations. Thus, the plotters were not careful in their choosing and handling of the substitute brain. They believed they would be long dead by the time these materials were finally released. Also, until the JFK assassination, the general public largely trusted the federal government. The plotters most likely believed that once the government issued its lone-gunman finding, that would settle the matter in the minds of nearly all Americans. I think they were surprised by the amount of scrutiny and doubt that emerged regarding the single-assassin story.

Yes, the Deep State despises Trump and gave us the fake Russia-collusion narrative that has now been thoroughly debunked. I don't think RFK Jr. has the Deep State's full attention yet. But, if he starts to gain traction, watch out. It's too bad that Talbot and Good repeat the myth that JFK was going to disengage from Vietnam after the election. Cherished myths die hard.

I rediscovered this gem from the HSCA FPP report regarding the conflict between the EOP entry site and the autopsy photos of the brain. After saying that the photos of the brain support the FPP's higher placement of the rear head entry wound, the FPP report says panel member Dr. Earl Rose wants to emphasize, on behalf of the majority of the panel, that the lack of injury on the inferior (lower) part of the brain is "incontrovertible" evidence that the autopsy report's EOP entry site is wrong: One panel member, Dr. Rose, wishes to emphasize the view of the majority of the panel (all except Dr. Wecht) that the absence of injury on the inferior surface the brain offers incontrovertible evidence that the wound in the President's head is not in the location described in the autopsy report. (7 H 115) If the brain photos are genuine, then there can be no EOP entry site, even though there is good evidence for the site. And, since there is no cowlick entry site either, we are left with no rear head entry wound, which is obviously impossible. Clearly, the autopsy photos of the brain are not of JFK's brain.

The chalk mark is far below T1. This isn't even a close call. This is obvious. The chalk mark, however, is close to the spot indicated by the rear clothing holes. Let's not miss the forest for the trees. The point is that the SBT is impossible with a back wound at the location marked by the chalk mark.

Yes, whatever its involvement in the hit, the CIA was neck-deep involved in the cover-up involving the photographic evidence, as Doug Horne has documented. Also, soon after JFK was dead, powerful elements of the CIA began trying to exploit Oswald's pro-Castro posturing to provoke an invasion of Cuba. @Pat SpeerPat, that was a very interesting and revealing post about Willens. Thanks for sharing.

Yes, and I might add that Mafia involvement does not mean that rogue-but-powerful CIA elements were not also involved. It just so happens that our strongest evidence regarding suspects points to the Mafia, but there is also evidence of CIA involvement, though this evidence is not as strong as the Mafia evidence. I think we should remember, too, that the CIA sometimes used the Mafia when it wanted to assassinate someone. It is entirely plausible that this is what happened in the JFK assassination, that the CIA employed the Mafia as its "tip of the spear," so to speak. However, I think it is also possible that the CIA did not use the Mafia to kill JFK but allowed or green-lighted the Mafia to do the hit. I can envision a scenario where certain CIA elements learned of the Mafia plot or were advised of the plot by their Mafia contacts and then either allowed it to happen or assured the Mafia they would not interfere. It is unfortunate that some researchers dismiss the Mafia evidence because they want to pin all the blame on the CIA.

Kilduff's claim is unbelievable and counter factual. JFK would not have said what Kilduff claimed he said because the war was going well and the South Vietnamese were most certainly "fighting for themselves." This was the whole reason JFK believed he could begin a gradual, conditional withdrawal. Again, read Selverstone's The Kennedy Withdrawal, for starters. Look, we really need to stop repeating the myth that JFK was going to cut and run from Vietnam after the election and that this is why he was killed. This myth has done enormous damage to the case for conspiracy. Even most liberal historians reject the claim that JFK was going to disengage from South Vietnam after the election. Every single scrap of period evidence from JFK and RFK themselves, both public and private, refutes this claim. The myth that JFK was killed over Vietnam took off when Oliver Stone made the sad mistake of believing Fletcher Prouty's ridiculous claims about JFK and Vietnam and made them a big part of his movie JFK. It is no surprise that critics from all across the political spectrum hammered the movie over these claims. Prouty was a fringe figure and a crackpot. He was also an anti-Semite who spent years palling around with Holocaust deniers and other extremists (such as the Scientology cult). The sooner we stop citing him and stop repeating his JFK-and-Vietnam myth, the better.

Most of this is based on far-left mythology. JFK had no interest in a coalition government in Vietnam, nor did the Diem brothers. JFK was determined to keep South Vietnam free. The White House tapes alone make that clear. There was already a Vietnam War. The U.S.-South Vietnam vs. North Vietnam war had been going on since 1960, when North Vietnam decided to increase the flow of troops and weapons into South Vietnam. That is why JFK authorized numerous increases in American military personnel and military aid. We had over 16,000 military personnel in South Vietnam by November 1963. 1999? Okay, so Salinger made this claim 36 years after the fact. One can only wonder why he did not reveal this in the '70s and '80s when a number of other Kennedy aides and friends came forward with claims that JFK had told them he was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election. You really should read Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal.

I must disagree with some of RFK Jr.'s arguments about Russia's invasion. He says the U.S. and NATO are partly to blame for the invasion because we broke our promise not to expand NATO eastward. He ignores the fact that when we made that commitment, Russia was a very different country than it later became. Initially, under Yeltsin, Russia was a semi-democratic state with emerging checks and balances and with regional leaders chosen by local elections, not to mention that Russia was not threatening or attacking any of its neighbors. All of this changed when Putin began to consolidate his power in the mid-2000s and invaded Georgia in 2008. Naturally, when Eastern European nations saw these things happening, they became concerned about their own security, and we and NATO were naturally willing to expand NATO eastward in response to the increasingly tyrannical and aggressive regime in Russia. Only an aggressor worries about a neighbor joining a defensive alliance. Putin had no excuse for invading the peaceful and liberal democracy of Ukraine, in violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.

And here's a video of this reenactment: LINK The reenactment was done by the FBI on May 23-23, 1964, in Dealey Plaza. You can see plainly in the video that the white dot on the JFK stand-in's coat is far below the neck, nowhere near C7 or T1, in harmony with the rear clothing holes.

Really? In point of fact, most news outlets have pulled some punches in their coverage of Russia's brutal, unprovoked invasion. I am disappointed with RFK Jr.'s rhetoric about Russia's invasion. He says the U.S. and NATO bear some of the blame because we broke our promise not to expand NATO eastward. He ignores the fact that when we made that verbal commitment, Russia was very different than it later became. For a time after the Wall fell, Russia was a semi-democratic state with emerging checks and balances and with regional leaders chosen by local elections, and Russia was taking no threatening actions. All of that changed when Putin began to consolidate his power in the mid-2000s and invaded the nation of Georgia in 2008. Naturally, when Eastern European nations saw these things happening, they became concerned about their own security and sovereignty, and we and NATO were naturally more inclined to expand NATO eastward. So we had very good reasons for expanding NATO eastward. Only an aggressor worries about a neighbor joining a defensive alliance. These facts make it all the more obvious that Putin had no excuse for invading Ukraine, a peaceful and liberal democracy, in clear violation of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.