Michael Griffith

You know this stuff is bogus and that it's already been answered, but you just keep repeating it. Again, for the fourth or fifth time, Boswell admitted to the ARRB that they were able to probe the back wound after they removed the chest organs. Boswell said that the probing was difficult before then because of the muscles, but that they were able to "get at it" once they removed the chest organs. And you know, because I have personally documented this in replies to you, that Dr. Karnei noted that the pathologists positioned the body "every which way" while doing the probing. He also noted that the men around the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity. That's where the wound ended. But you will never admit this but will float farcical theories rather than accept this powerful evidence. You also know that after taking over the probing from Humes and spending a long time probing the wound himself, Dr. Finck, who was a board-certified forensic pathologist, proclaimed "this wound has no exit." That's when Sibert called Dallas to see if they had found a bullet. You just cast aside the numerous eyewitness accounts that document that the pathologists absolutely, positively established that the back wound had no exit point at the autopsy. You cite the third draft of the autopsy report and dismiss all these independent, mutually corroborating accounts. You're still repeating the myth that Humes, Boswell, and Finck didn't know about the throat wound until after the autopsy report??? Seriously? Who are you people? Why do you get on public boards and repeat myths that have been debunked for years? When are you folks going to deal with Doug Horne's documentation that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? When? You'll find it in chapter 11 of Inside the ARRB, Volume 3. Horne spends 26 pages documenting this.

You're simply determined to see the emperor's new clothes. If you could be objective, you would readily admit that the accounts of substantial missing brain certainly rule out the idea that no more than two ounces of brain were missing. The witnesses saw the brain from different angles and in different circumstances, so naturally there is some variance in their descriptions of the amount of missing brain, but they all make it clear that more than two ounces were missing. No, Riebe was not the only witness who said that more than half the brain was gone. Three other witnesses said that more than half was gone (Knudsen, O'Neill, O'Connor), and one other implied it (Hill). And, a clump of missing brain the size of a closed fist would be far, far more brain matter than is missing in the brain photos. But never mind that, right? You are misrepresenting Connally's testimony about the amount of brain matter he saw. He made it clear that he saw more brain matter than just the clump of brain tissue on his knee. He said he saw brain matter on his clothes and on the interior of the car. Let's read his statement together: So I merely doubled up, and then turned to my right again and began to--I just sat there, and Mrs. Connally pulled me over to her lap. She was sitting, of course, on the jump seat, so I reclined with my head in her lap, conscious all the time, and with my eyes open; and then, of course, the third shot sounded, and I heard the shot very clearly. I heard it hit him. I heard the shot hit something, and I assumed again--it never entered my mind that it ever hit anybody but the President. I heard it hit. It was a very loud noise, just that audible, very clear. Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail. (4 H 133) "Hargis was not a doctor. . . ." Oh, boy. This comment shows you have no interest in fact or truth on this issue, but just in peddling the lone-gunman myth. Hargis said he saw blood, brain matter, and some kind of clear fluid, which he logically viewed as brain fluid. So, pray tell, other than the blood and the clear fluid he described, what other substance splattered onto Hargis's clothes and windshield, if not brain tissue? And, pray tell, what was the substance that splattered on the follow-up car's windshield, on Kinney's clothes (follow-up car occupant), on Jackie's dress, and on Officer's Martin's windshield? The people who saw it specified that the substance was separate from the blood. We all know it was brain matter, but you can't admit this without admitting that the brain photos are bogus. I concluded that you weren't interested in fact and candor on the JFK case when you floated the ludicrous and long-debunked bunched-clothing argument, even though it's refuted by Betzner 3 and Willis 5, and when you insisted that the autopsy doctors left JFK's right arm lying on the table during the whole time they were positioning the body "every which way" to probe the back wound, even after they removed the chest organs and could see the end of the probe, and even though Boswell admitted to the ARRB that they had no trouble probing the wound after they removed the chest organs.

Yet, years after the Randich-Grant study, you still have WC apologists repeating the myth that NAA proved that the JFK bullet fragments came from MC ammo.

Is this some kind of silly joke? After all the evidence that has been discussed, how can you seriously quote the third version of the autopsy report??? Seriously? Did you still not read all the accounts of the probing and of the pathologists' positive, certain determination that the back wound had no exit point? Have you still not read the documentation that shows that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? The problem is that you are determined to see the emperor's new clothes, no matter much how evidence proves he's naked. You brush aside numerous independent and mutually corroborating accounts and cite the third version of the autopsy report. Unbelievable. You are not to be taken seriously on this issue.

You're kidding, right? Your blog article does not even address most of the evidence of a substantial amount of missing brain. It does not even mention all the brain matter that was splattered in and on the limo, on Jackie's dress, on the follow-up car, and on two of the patrolmen. Did you not read the previous replies in this thread before citing your blog article? Let me repeat some of the evidence that has been discussed: Floyd Riebe, who assisted John Stringer with taking photos at the autopsy, said that less than half the brain was present: Q: Did you see the brain removed from President Kennedy? A: What little bit there was left, yes. Q: Were any photographs taken of the brain? A: I think I did some when they were putting it in that stainless steel pail. Q: When you say that there was not much left, what do you mean by that? A: Well, it was less than half of a brain there. (Deposition of Floyd Albert Riebe, ARRB, 5/7/1997, pp. 43-44) From Clint Hill's 11/22/1963 report, in which he describes what he saw at very close range as he rode on top of the back seat on the way to Parkland--part of the brain was gone and there was a wound in the right-rear part of the head: As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. (11/22/1963 report, p. 3) From Clint Hill's WC testimony--there were pieces of brain matter "all over" the rear part of the car, and he still saw the right-rear head wound: Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. (2 H 141) Mortician Tom Robinson, who witnessed the autopsy and who reassembled JFK's skull after the autopsy, said that the amount of brain missing in the back of the head was about the size of a closed fist: Robinson said that he saw the brain removed from President Kennedy's body and that a large percentage of it was gone "in the back," from the "medulla," and that the portion of the brain that was missing was about the size of a closed fist. He described the condition of the brain in this area as the consistency of "soup." (Meeting Report, ARRB, 6/21/1996, p. 2) Gloria Knudsen, wife of Robert Knudsen, who processed some of the autopsy photos, said her husband told her that JFK's brains were largely missing: Mrs. Gloria Knudsen said that her husband Robert had told her that . . . the President's brains were largely missing (blown out). (Meeting Report, ARRB, 5/10/1996, p. 2) Patrolman Bobby Hargis, who was riding closely behind and to the left of the limousine, said that when the explosive head shot occurred, he was "splattered with blood and brain": Mr. HARGIS. Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of a bloody water. (6 H 294) Patrolman B. J. Martin, who was riding beside Hargis, said blood and "other matter" were splattered on his uniform, windshield, and motor: Mr. BALL. What about your uniform?Mr. Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and matter on my left shoulder of my uniform. Mr. BALL. You pointed to a place in front of your shoulder, about the clavicle region? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Is that about where it was? Mr. MARTIN. Yes. Mr. BALL. On the front of your uniform and not on the side? Mr. MARTIN. No, sir. Mr. BALL. That would be left, was it? Mr. MARTIN. Yes ; on the left side. Mr. BALL. And just below the level of the shoulder? Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. And what spots were there? Mr. MARTIN. They were blood spots and other matter. Mr. BALL. And what did you notice on your windshield? Mr. MARTIN. There was blood and other matter on my windshield and also on the motor. (6 H 292) Jack McNairy, who saw the limousine up-close at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "gray matter" splattered over a large part of the back seat: As I looked around, I saw that there was gray matter splattered here [pointing to the inside of the rear passenger door to the right JFK's seat] and along the back of the front seat. (LINK) Patrolman H. B. McClain, who helped Jackie get out of the limousine at Parkland Hospital, said in a video-taped interview that there was "matter" splattered all over the inside of the right-hand side of the car: I could see what looked like a piece of skull, some hair, and matter splattered all over inside the car. It was all on the right-hand side of the car, except the part of the skull--it was laying right in the middle. (LINK) When interview by CBS News in 2013, Clint Hill repeated his account of seeing a large amount of missing brain: Scott Pelley: What did you see? Clint Hill: Brain matter, blood, bone fragments all come out of the wound.… Then Mrs. Kennedy came up on the trunk. She was trying to grab some of that material and pull it back with her.… I got a hold of her and I put her in the backseat. … And when I did that, his body fell to its left into her lap. His face--is head was in her lap. The right side of his face was up. I could see his eyes were fixed. I could see an area through the skull that there was no brain matter in that area at all. So I assumed it was a fatal wound. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-who-jumped-on-jfks-limo-recounts-fateful-moments/) Secret Service agent Sam Kinney, who rode in the follow-up car, stated in a recorded interview with Vincent Palamara that brain matter splattered "all over" his windshield and arm: The back of that Lincoln would be directly in front of me. Well, I had brain matter all over my windshield and arm. That's how close we were. (LINK, 19:33-19:47) In 2003, Dr. Robeert Grossman, one of the Parkland doctors, wrote that Jackie's dress was splattered with brain tissue and blood: Her face was very white and she appeared to have been crying. She was wearing a light-colored dress. The lap of her dress was covered with blood and brain tissue. (https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/22/19797270/neurosurgeon-recalls-examining-the-dying-jfk) Clearly, the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain. Similarly, the claim that JFK's post-assassination brain weighed 1,500 grams is obviously bogus. Even if we assume the brain was weighed after it had been fixed in formalin, the weight of 1,500 grams is ludicrous. Fixing a brain in formalin may add about 100 grams of weight, but it may also reduce the weight by that amount. The average male human brain weighs about 1,350 grams. And Baden's claim that edema fluids increased the weight of the brain borders on silliness, given the fact that we know that brain fluid was also blasted out of the skull and splattered on several surfaces. Hargis specified that brain tissue and brain fluid splattered on his windshield. Shall we mention that the Zapruder film shows a blob of brain matter and blood blowing upward and toward the camera? That blob alone looks like much more than just two ounces. To give you some idea of little two ounces are, consider that two ounces equal four tablespoons of fluid. The blob in the Z film alone is clearly more than that.

Doug Horne deals with this issue in some depth. He makes a credible case that, yes, there was pre-autopsy surgery (sometimes aka post-mortem surgery), and that Humes and Boswell were the ones who did the illicit surgery. He covers this in his Inside the ARRB book. He discusses it in this video: The JFK Medical Coverup Q & A – The Future of Freedom Foundation (fff.org)

Oh, then you must agree that the autopsy brain photos are clearly fraudulent, since, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to acknowledge, they show a virtually complete brain that's missing no more than "an ounce or two" of its substance. A fist-sized clump of brain tissue would weigh a lot more than two ounces, not to mention the fact that the autopsy brain photos show no such amount of missing brain. Let's remember what Vincent Bugliosi said about all the evidence of a large amount of missing brain. He waved it aside by quoting Dr. Baden, who based his claim on the brain photos! Yes, he did: "Contrary to the myth," Dr. Michael Baden told me, people who have said that the president lost a good part of his brain “are absolutely wrong.” Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top. (See sketch in photo section of book.) As Baden said in his testimony before the HSCA, the diagram “represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of the brain” (1 HSCA 304). (“It’s an exact depiction,” he told me.) Note the words “damage and injury” as opposed to saying a large part of the brain was “missing.” So just never mind all the brain matter that we know was splattered inside the limo (right passenger door and back seat), on the limo's trunk, on the follow-up car (hood and windshield), on Jackie's dress, and on two of the trailing patrolmen (both of their uniforms and windshields)? That makes a total of 10 surfaces that were splattered with brain matter. No rational, credible person can read the descriptions of the brain matter that was splattered on those 10 surfaces and believe that they are describing only two ounces of brain tissue. What about all the witnesses, in three different locations, who said a large amount of brain tissue was missing? What do we do with all of their accounts? Just assume that, well, they were all "mistaken"? And what about the fact that OD measurements confirm that the x-rays show that over half of the right-hand side of the brain was missing, and that brain matter was also missing on the left side? Well, just never you mind.

Huh??? This is your answer to the accounts of the probing??? Or did you write this without reading the accounts? Are you aware that we've known for years that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat? Doug Horne has documented this in great detail (Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Volume 3, 2010 printing, pp. 845-871). By the way, Secret Service agent Bill Greer, who was present for the entire autopsy, is yet another witness who heard nothing about the back wound having an exit point during the autopsy: Specter: Was anything said about any channel being present in the body for the bullet to have gone on through the back? Greer: No, sir; I hadn't heard anything like that, any trace of it going on through. (2 H 127) I've quoted Sibert and O'Neill's ARRB testimony and O'Neill's HSCA interview, but let's see what they said just four days after the autopsy in their report on the autopsy: During the latter stages of this autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders. . . . This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger. (Francis O'Neill and James Sibert, "Autopsy of Body of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy," 11/26/1963, p. 4, LINK) Well, no wonder the WC ignored this report, did not include it in the published hearings and exhibits, and buried it in the National Archives, where Harold Weisberg discovered it in 1966. But let's get even closer to the time of the autopsy. Sibert and O'Neill sent a telegram to FBI Director Hoover at 2:00 AM on 11/23/1963, just hours after the autopsy, and therein they said the back wound was located below the shoulder and was a shallow wound that had no exit point: One bullet hole located just below shoulders to right of spinal column, and hand probing indicated trajectory at angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward and hole of short depth with no point of exit. (O'Neill and Sibert, FBI teletype: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy, 11/23/1963, p. 1, ARRB document MD 149)

No, the HSCA acoustical analysis of the DPD dictabelt has not been debunked, not at all. BBN scientists did new tests that refute the claim that the "hold everything" transmission refutes the HSCA acoustical evidence. Have you not read Dr. Josiah Thompson's new book, which devotes dozens of pages to the new BBN analysis? You could start by answering my article on the acoustical evidence: hscaacous.pdf - Google Drive

When are you folks going to deal credibly with the fact that we now know that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors absolutely, positively knew that the back wound had no exit point? -- Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest”! He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . . Q: Why didn't they turn the body over? A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . . Q: But this was after the Y incision? A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest. They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (p. 10) In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476). In his 8/27/77 HSCA interview, Karnei said that he recalled the autopsy doctors "putting the probe in and taking pictures" (p. 5). Karnei was not the only witness who saw pictures taken of the probing, but those pictures were never included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. I think we all know why. Karnei also told the HSCA that he saw "the chest cavity opened and watched the removal of the organs," and that after this he saw Finck "working with a probe and arranging for photographs" (p. 6). This is another reference that indicates photos were taken of the probing. -- James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13). Jenkins added that at around the time of the probing "they repeatedly took x-rays of the area” (p. 8 ). For obvious reasons, those x-rays were not included in the official collection of the autopsy materials. In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following: Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity. -- In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck: Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck? A: It was put into the back part. Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck? A: No. (p. 73) -- FBI Special Agent Francis O'Neill, who was in the autopsy room during the entire autopsy, revealed in his 9/12/97 ARRB interview that at the end of the autopsy, there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the bullet that was found in Dallas had fallen out of the back wound: There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out." There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever, that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in. Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim went out and called. . . . Q: You previously made reference to attempts to probe that wound. Did you ever see any kind of metal object used to probe that wound? A: Yes. They used a metal probe, in addition to their fingers. . . . In the back, they probed it to a point where they could not probe any further. In other words, it did not go any further. (pp. 30-31) O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." That's when Sibert left to call the FBI lab to see if "any extra bullets existed." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573). O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575). -- FBI Special Agent James Sibert, who was at the autopsy with O’Neill, echoed O’Neill in his 9/11/97 ARRB interview. Sibert said he called Killion to see if any bullets had been found because the autopsy doctors said the back wound had no exit point: Q: Can you tell me, was the phone call made to Mr. Killion before or after the body was unloaded from the casket? A: Oh, that was after the body was removed; it was on the autopsy table, and the autopsy was in progress. Because the reason I made that call was that the pathologists said, "There’s no exit to this back wound,” and probed it with rubber glove and a chrome probe. (p. 59) Sibert explained more about the probing and the fact that the autopsy doctors--"Finck, in particular"--said they could feel the end of the back wound: But when they raised him up, then they found this back wound. And that’s when they started probing with the rubber glove and the finger, and also with the chrome probe. And that’s just before, of course, I made this call, because they were at a loss to explain what had happened to this bullet. They couldn’t find any bullet. And they said, "There's no exit.” Finck, in particular, said, "There's no exit.” And they said that you could feel it with the end of the finger. I mean, the depth of this wound. (p. 111) -- Dr. John Ebersole, the radiologist at the autopsy, stated in his 3/11/78 testimony to the HSCA’s medical panel that the autopsy doctors determined that the back wound had no exit point: Further probing determined that the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger, inasmuch as a complete bullet of any size could be located in the brain area and likewise no bullet could be located in the back or any other areas. An inspection revealed there was no point of exit. The individuals performing the autopsy were at a loss to explain why they could find no bullets. (p. 57) -- In discussing the probing of the back wound, autopsy doctor J. Thornton Boswell admitted in his 2/26/96 ARRB interview that after they "opened the chest" they could see that "the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura”: We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you couldn't get a finger or a probe through it. But when we opened the chest and we got at—the lung extends up under the clavicle and high just beneath the neck here, and the bullet had not pierced through into the lung cavity but had caused hemorrhage just outside the pleura. (pp. 75-76) In a somewhat confusing mix of describing and theorizing, Dr. Boswell then switched from describing the probing to speculating about a hypothetical path from the back wound that would have resulted in a probe coming out of the throat wound, saying that “if you put a probe in this and got it back through like this, that would come out right at the base of the neck” (p. 76). He had to resort to a hypothetical because he knew that at the autopsy they found the end of the tract and that it ended at the lining of the chest cavity.

I don't like the idea of banning WC apologists. Yes, most of their arguments are wrong, and some of them are patently absurd. However, what if WC apologists ran this forum and started banning CTers for repeatedly posting their arguments?

There were actually two Oswald wallets and two Hidell ID cards found. WC apologists refuse to admit that someone clearly planted a fake "Oswald" wallet, complete with a fake Hidell ID card, at the Tippit murder scene, even though former FBI Special Agent Robert Barrett insisted that an Oswald wallet with both Oswald ID and fake Hidell ID was found at the scene, and even though Barrett clearly recalled that he was asked if he knew who Oswald or Hidell was by the policeman who was examining the wallet. In addition, former FBI Special Agent James Hosty confirmed that Barrett told him about the finding of an Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene. Moreover, there is news film footage of policemen examining a wallet right next to Tippit's patrol car. I discuss the Oswald wallet and the Hidell ID planted at the Tippit scene at some length in my article "Did Oswald Shoot Tippit?".

According to the folks at Democracy Now, Common Dreams, Ratical, and other far-left groups, we either "deserved" 9/11 or 9/11 was our fault or the U.S. Government was complicit in 9/11.

Greg, your paper is excellent. I've added a link to it on the Article and Videos page of my JFKA website. jfkassassination (google.com)

Have you answered Dr. Gary Aguilar's critique of Bugliosi's book? Essay - Review of Reclaiming History (maryferrell.org) Among other things, Aguilar points out that Bugliosi claimed that neutron activation analysis (NAA) proved that the JFK bullet fragments were from MC bullets, even though he was aware that a peer-reviewed article published in the Journal of Forensic Science refuted that claim. The article was written by two scientists from the Lawrence Livermore Lab, Dr. Erik Randich (a metallurgist) and Dr. Pat Grant (a chemist). Randich and Grant noted that MC bullets are "quite similar" in composition to other FMJ bullets, and they showed that the NAA profile of the JFK bullet fragments proved that the fragments were consistent with "any number" of other FMJ bullets. They established that "any number of jacketed" bullets would have produced the same NAA profile as the JFK bullet fragments. Yet, Bugliosi dismissed Randich and Grant's study because ardent WC apologist Larry Sturdivan, who had no training in metallurgy or chemistry, told him in a letter that the study was wrong! As Aguilar notes, He [Bugliosi] had to choose between the personal remarks of a longstanding anti-conspiracy NAA proponent with unremarkable credentials and those of two conspiracy-agnostic Lawrence Livermore Lab scientists with superb credentials writing in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and he chose the former. To this day, WC apologists still peddle the false claim that NAA proves that the JFK bullet fragments came from the type of ammo that Oswald allegedly used, when in fact it proves no such thing.

We can see this fact clearly in CE 388, Humes's diagram of the rear head bullet's path through the skull. In order to get the bullet to create and exit the alleged exit wound above the right ear, Humes had to assume JFK's head was titled forward by about 60 degrees. Of course, Z312 shows no such pronounced forward tilt. CE 388 also shows the path of the fragment trail from the EOP site to a point just above the right eye socket, and it includes the 7 x 2 mm fragment that Humes removed. Compare the location of the low fragment trail as illustrated in CE 388 with the high fragment trail, and then try to imagine how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken one for the other. Also, compare the EOP entry site and the fragment trail in CE 388 with the location of the cerebellum in images that show the cerebellum in a skull, and you will see that the cerebellum would have been severely damaged. The fragment trail clearly, self-evidently would have gone through part of the cerebellum.

You are wrong. I got with Dr. Mantik about these claims. He does not believe the Moon landings were faked, and he has no idea how or why you think otherwise. He said, "In fact, subsequent high-resolution images of the Moon have identified the landing site. Why on earth would Pat invent such nonsense?" As for 9/11, he said he is open to the possibility of controlled demolitions but stressed that he has done no research on the subject and is not an expert on the matter. He also said he does not believe that a missile hit the Pentagon.

Even allowing for the modest forward tilt of JFK's head in Z312-313, a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window and entering at the EOP site would have blown out part of the face and could not have created the exit wound described in the autopsy report.

I've never quoted Bugliosi unless it was to refute him. I've never denied the possibility that a CIA-Mockingbird operation aided the cover-up (I think it's at least entirely plausible). Every word I've said about Prouty has been documented, and much of it comes from Prouty's own statements and from pro-Prouty sources. And I've never denied JFK's "NSAM 263 policy"--you have simply ignored the evidence about the background and intent of that policy. The point is that it is harmful and illogical to attack people who posit a JFKA conspiracy just because they don't agree with every facet of your outlandish, fringe version of the conspiracy.

I seriously doubt this, but I will check with him just to be certain.

One thing to keep in mind about the throat wound is that Dr. Charles Carrico told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the bullet must have been traveling from front to back: . . . there was some damage to the trachea behind it [the wound], so the thing must have been going from front to back. (7 HSCA 270) Similarly, Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out in a January 1967 letter to Ramparts that the Parkland doctors described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea larger than the throat wound, and that this indicated the bullet had entered the throat, not exited it (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158). Finally, any discussion on the throat wound needs to include the fact that we now have truly massive evidence, from multiple independent and mutually corroborating sources, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors knew beyond any doubt that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. In relation to this fact, we also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat.

If you study other conspiracies, i.e., conspiracies that virtually no one disputes, you find that intricate, powerful conspiracies do not require hundreds of knowing participants. For example, the Iran-Contra conspiracy plotted to initiate actions that involved hundreds of people who had no idea they were furthering the goals of a plot. As a micro example, consider the JFK autopsy. Only a handful of people at the autopsy knew they were carrying out a cover-up. Most of the people at the autopsy had no idea they were witnessing or facilitating a cover-up. Sibert and O'Neill, for instance, wrote a report on the autopsy that contained revealing, damaging information that proved problematic for the lone-gunman theory. Several other federal agents gave descriptions of JFK's wounds in their reports and/or WC testimony that contradicted the lone-gunman story. When the medical personnel at the autopsy later spoke with the HSCA, most of them provided damning descriptions of the large head wound that Baden and/or Blakey felt compelled to suppress and lie about. Similarly, a number of DPD officers and FBI agents submitted reports and/or gave testimony about the evidence regarding the shooting that contained damning information that WC apologists later had to attack as "inaccurate," "mistaken," etc.

Did you somehow miss the part of the interview when JFK made it clear that he was opposed to withdrawing from Vietnam, when he said that withdrawing would be a "great mistake"?: All we can do is help, and we are making it very clear, but I don't agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. I know people don't like Americans to be engaged in this kind of an effort. Forty-seven Americans have been killed in combat with the enemy, but this is a very important struggle even though it is far away. We took all this--made this effort to defend Europe. Now Europe is quite secure. We also have to participate--we may not like it--in the defense of Asia. And look what JFK said when asked about De Gaulle's then-recent statement (regarding neutrality in Vietnam): Mr. Cronkite: Mr. President, have you made an assessment as to what President de Gaulle was up to in his statement on Viet-Nam last week? THE PRESIDENT. NO. I guess it was an expression of his general view, but he doesn't have any forces there or any program of economic assistance, so that while these expressions are welcome, the burden is carried, as it usually is, by the United States and the people there. But I think anything General de Gaulle says should be listened to, and we listened. What, of course, makes Americans somewhat impatient is that after carrying this load for 18 years, we are glad to get counsel, but we would like a little more assistance, real assistance. But we are going to meet our responsibility anyway. It doesn't do us any good to say, "Well, why don't we all just go home and leave the world to those who are our enemies." Look at what JFK said on the White House tapes. He made it as clear as English can be that he was determined to win the war. Selverstone documents this beyond any rational dispute in his new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Yes, certainly, JFK did not want to send regular combat troops to South Vietnam, but that is a galaxy away from the spurious claim that he was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Although he wanted to avoid deploying regular infantry units in South Vietnam, he was determined to keep providing military and economic aid to keep South Vietnam free. Every public statement he made supports this fact, and we now know that his private comments--recorded on the White House tapes--confirm this fact. Never, never, never, not one single time, not once on the White House tapes do we hear JFK express even a hint of an intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election. We hear just the opposite, as Selverstone documents.

It is often overlooked that the Clark Panel said that the fragment trail on the lateral skull x-rays ran parallel with the EOP and was consistent with the fragment trail described in the autopsy report. The panel said the fragments were above “a horizontal plane through the floor of the anterior fossa of the skull,” i.e., a horizontal line parallel with the EOP and thus consistent with the autopsy report’s description of “along a line corresponding with a line joining the above-described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge”! Even more incredibly and erroneously, and in contradiction to their claim that the high fragment trail was the trail described in the autopsy report, the Clark Panel stated that the high fragment trail lined up with the revised entry site. This is astounding because the revised entry site (aka the cowlick entry site) is about 4 inches higher than the EOP site given in the autopsy report. Moreover, as Dr. David O. Davis informed the HSCA, the high fragment trail is actually about 5 cm (1.9 inches) above the cowlick entry site (1 HSCA 201). Dr. Gary Aguilar concurs: Therefore, the trail of fragments is 5-cm higher than the “above-mentioned hole” [the cowlick entry site]. And so, if extended posteriorly, the fragment trail does not pass through the “above-mentioned hole,” but 5-cm above it. (https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_3.htm) So where is the entry site that could explain the fragments in the high fragment trail? Keep in mind that the high fragment trail does not extend to the back of the skull. It is concentrated in the right frontal region and dissipates toward the back of the head, and falls well short of the back of the head. And, again, why does the autopsy report say nothing about the high fragment trail? Why does the autopsy report describe a low fragment trail that is nowhere to be seen on the extant skull x-rays? Try to fathom how even a first-year medical student could have mistaken a fragment trail near the top of the head for a fragment trail that started several inches lower at the EOP and that ran to a point just above the right eye.

But having Rosselli as a shooter and having Nicolleti and Tippit chasing Oswald is no worse and no more implausible than having Lansdale as a key player in the plot, having Lansdale in Dealey Plaza, and having JFK being killed because he was supposedly going to abandon South Vietnam after the election.