Michael Griffith

In other forums, I have tried repeatedly to get WC apologists to explain the fact that the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report does not appear on the extant autopsy skull x-rays. The only fragment trail seen on the extant x-rays is a high fragment trail that is at least 2 inches higher than the one described in the autopsy report and is concentrated on the opposite side of the skull.

The autopsy report says the fragment trail started at the EOP and extended to a point just above the right eye. WC apologists need to explain (1) why this low fragment trail does not appear on the extant x-rays, (2) why there are no fragments near the EOP, and (3) how three autopsy pathologists could have confused the plainly visible and obvious high fragment trail for a trail that started about 3 inches lower, especially when they had the EOP as a reference site, as well as the hairline.

The high fragment trail on the extant x-rays is above the debunked cowlick entry site but does not extend to or from the cowlick; rather, it consists of a cloud of fragments in the right frontal region, and from that cloud it dissipates upward toward the back of the head without reaching the cowlick. Now, just try to imagine how in the world a bullet that entered at the EOP, at a 15-degree downward angle no less, could leave such a fragment trail.

It is worth mentioning that Dr. Pierre Finck, the only board-certified forensic pathologist of the three autopsy doctors, insisted to the HSCA and the ARRB that he saw the low entry point described in the autopsy report. He told the HSCA that it was 2.5 cm to the right and slightly above the EOP. When the FPP showed Finck the back-of-head photo that has a small reddish spot in the cowlick, he refused to say that this was the entry wound, insisted that the back-of-head photo was shot from a distorted angle, and said that the photo did not show the wound that he saw on the body itself (HSCA Medical Panel Meeting transcript, March 11, 1978, pp. 82-102).

Then, the FPP members pressed him about the red spot on the back-of-head photo and showed him enhanced and colorized versions of the red spot, but Finck would not budge, and at one point he even asked how the photographs had been authenticated as coming from the autopsy:

          Dr. Finck. I don't know what it [the red spot] is. How are these photographs identified as coming from the autopsy of President Kennedy? (p. 89)

Finck added that he asked for pictures to be taken of the rear head entry wound from outside the skull and from inside the skull, a standard autopsy procedure, but that he never saw such photos in the collection of autopsy photos that he reviewed. When asked specifically if the red spot was any kind of a wound or defect, Finck said no:

          Mr. Purdy. One final question. At the time of the autopsy do you recall anything at the upper area where the red spot is at the caldic? Do you remember anything that would correspond to that red spot? 

          Dr. Finck. No. No, there was only one wound of entry in the back of the head. (p. 94)

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

Instead of talking about what someone else means when they say something, I'm going to talk about what I mean when I say it. Here we go:

But first, note that every presidential poll taken since Trump was in office, where those being polled were political scholars, presidential scholars, or historians, has ranked Donald Trump very near the bottom and ranked Ronald Reagan 10 to 15 from the top.

If someone said that Trump was one of the greatest presidents ever, I'd say that that person's judgement isn't trustworthy.

If someone else said that Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever, I'd again say that that person's judgement isn't trustworthy.

Now tell me, did I say those things because I am a rabid partisan?

If I did, then I would have to be both rabid left-wing and rabid right-wing simultaneously. Since I cannot be both, then there must be another reason for my not trusting the opinions of those two people. The reason I don't trust them  has nothing to do with my political leanings. It has everything to do with the opinions of those two being the opposite of the dozens of scholars who participated in the presidential polls.

Are you just purposely missing the point? You're leaving out a key component and problem: Allen Lowe said that Memet's JFKA research was automatically suspect merely because he supported and praised Trump. 

When someone says "anything John Doe says about JFK's death is automatically suspect" merely because John Doe has expressed support for this or that political figure, they are showing extreme partisan bias. 

It is one thing to question Memet's support of Trump. It is quite another thing to say that just because he supports Trump, anything he says about the assassination is automatically suspect because he must be "extremely untrustworthy."  

This same rabid partisan bias shows up in many books on the JFKA, wherein sweeping tar-brush attacks are made against conservative politicians and against conservatives in general. In contrast, you never see such bias displayed in conservative books that support the conspiracy position on the JFKA.

Just imagine if conservatives were the majority in this forum and if many of them expressed the view that any JFKA book written by an Obama supporter was probably flawed/wrong because supporting Obama made an author "extremely untrustworthy." 

Anyone who has taken a college-level critical thinking course can tell you that it is invalid and illogical to presume than an author's research on the JFKA is automatically suspect because the author is "extremely unreliable" based solely on their support for a given political figure.

Finally, just on a point of logic, I, for one, would not conclude that a person's judgment was untrustworthy just because they said Reagan was one of the worst presidents ever. It is invalid and illogical to draw such a sweeping conclusion about someone's judgment based on a single statement of that nature. Now, if that person said the Moon landings were faked, or that 9/11 was inside job, or that the Holocaust never happened, yes, then I would reach a general conclusion about their judgment. 

The HSCA simply went too far toward the truth for the MSM to accept, even though the HSCA committed many sins and could and should have gone much further. Puritanical CTs forget that the HSCA, among other things, concluded that

Ruby had substantial Mafia ties, including: "During the course of its investigation, the committee noted the existence of other past relationships between Ruby and associates of Hoffa, apart from those disclosed by a review of the Ruby phone records. Two such figures were Paul Dorfman, the Chicago underworld figure who was instrumental in Hoffa's rise to power in the labor movement, and David Yaras, the reputed organized crime executioner whose relationship to Ruby dated back to their early days in Chicago."

Ruby lied about how he entered the DPD basement.

Ruby probably had inside help getting into the basement.

Ruby lied about his motive for killing Oswald.

Seth Kantor was not mistaken about seeing Ruby at Parkland Hospital in the afternoon of 11/22/63.

Ruby's movements on the weekend of the assassination "could indicate that Ruby was pursuing Oswald's movements throughout the weekend."

Evidence suggested that Oswald had some kind of relationship with David Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw.

Silvia Odio's story was credible.

The WC's investigation was flawed and insufficient.

JFK's presidential protection may have been "uniquely insecure."

Acoustics and eyewitness testimony established with a high degree of probability that a shot was fired from the grassy knoll.

The six witnesses who reported seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Shaw in Clinton, Louisiana, were "credible and significant."

The "electronic surveillance transcripts of Angelo Bruno, Stefano Magaddino and other top organized crime leaders make clear" that "there were in fact various underworld conversations in which the desirability of having the President assassinated was discussed." 

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Folks,

   Since Michael Griffith joined the Education Forum last July, he has spent 70% of his time falsely disparaging the superlative research of JFKA expert, James DiEugenio.

   He has spent 25% of his time falsely disparaging Col. L. Fletcher Prouty.

    He has spent the other 5% falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars who have debunked the official government narrative about 9/11.

This is your answer to my reply???

You know that I have not "falsely disparaged" Fletcher Prouty. You must know this is a false claim. You have done nothing but duck and dodge and offer lame excuses for the clear evidence of Prouty's erroneous claims, his anti-Semitic statements, his disgraceful defense of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, and his sleazy relationships with Holocaust deniers. 

As for "falsely disparaging the scientists and scholars" who peddle the 9/11 Truther lunacy, someone should calculate how much time you have spent pushing this nutcase material in this forum. Again, 99% of the scientists and scholars who've examined the 9/11 Truther material regard it as nutty and baseless, but you just don't care. Nor do you care that the overwhelming majority of educated people disagree with you on this subject.

Finally, as for my disagreements with James DiEugenio, most of them involve the Vietnam War, JFK's Vietnam policy, and Fletcher Prouty. Much of Jim's research is solid. I've said many times that JFK Revisited is superb and historic, which is why I recommended it on my JFKA website. But his research on the Vietnam War and JFK's Vietnam policy is very bad and amateurish, and his continued defense of Prouty is inexcusable and reflects badly on his credibility. 

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The people on this board should know this since its pretty much JFK 101 .

The Commission was desperate to discredit Odio--a powerful witness with eyewitness and written corroboration--any which way they could.

So Hoover made up that BS story about Howard, Hall and Seymour.  Which barely lasted past the printing of the volumes.

But also, Liebeler tried to seduce her after he interviewed her.  She fought him off. This was part of the strategy of turning her into a "loose woman" in Warren's eyes.

But before that visit to his hotel room, Wesley told Odio something remarkable.  

He told her that they had orders from Warren to bury any trace of conspiracy.

When she told Fonzi this, he was flabbergasted.  But she swore by it.

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And you actually believe this?

It's utterly ridiculous to think that Wesley J. Liebeler made any such statement to Sylvia Odio.

Given Liebeler's sharply critical and overtly skeptical internal reviews of the draft of the Commission's report, and given the Commission's repeated refusal to pursue leads that indicated conspiracy, I don't see why it's "utterly ridiculous" to believe that Liebeler said this to Silvia Odio. Occam's razor tells us that Odio, who had no agenda and no reason to lie, was telling the truth. 

The fact that the FBI fabricated the story about Howard, Hall, and Seymour in an attempt to explain away the Odio sisters' account is an obvious indication that this was not an honest, ethical investigation, but a cover-up. 

On 4/28/2023 at 8:56 PM, Evan Burton said:

Just one small point: fuel vapours are indeed a hazard, and have been known about for years. Most military aircraft get refuelled - to some degree - when shutting down for the day. We used to do this with MB-326H Macchi jets at 2FTS, RAAF Base Pearce, in the 70s / 80s. Same with the Seahawk aircraft operated by the RAN (except there you don't want to over-fill the aircraft, making it too heavy for the planned sortie and therefore having to be de-fuelled). You want to avoid vapour as much as you can.

Have a look around and you'll see a lot of aircraft these days have systems that replace the empty space in fuel tanks with nitrogen as the fuel is burnt down.

Cheers!

Oh, the airline industry and the military were well aware of the dangers posed by vapors in fuel tanks long before TWA 800 occurred. That's why they so drastically limited the electrical capacity of the systems and wiring in the center wing tank. That's why the NTSB could not come up with a single example of a 737 center wing tank exploding in flight. That's also why the NTSB could not even identify a potential ignition source. The Boeing TWA 800 report destroys the NTSB's theory.

In his 2015 book The Real Watergate Scandal, former Nixon White House attorney Geoff Shepard makes a strong case that the real scandal of Watergate was the Democrats' abuse of the judicial system and their distortion of the evidence to bring down Richard Nixon. Shepard makes a powerful case that the "smoking gun" White House tape that was presented as proof that Nixon ordered a cover-up of the Watergate burglary was actually taken grossly out of context, and that Nixon was not talking about covering up the burglary. Shepard's case on this point is so strong that even John Dean has acknowledged it. 

Now, mind you, Shepard does not whitewash Nixon's lies and other misconduct, but he does argue that Nixon was not guilty of the main charges that the Democrats made against him. He also makes the point that Nixon's various sins were comparable to those of some other elected officials, including a few presidents, not one of whom resigned. 

The Real Watergate Scandal: Collusion, Conspiracy, and the Plot That Brought Nixon Down

Here is Shepard's website:

Geoff Shepard | Author of The Real Watergate Scandal Book (shepardonwatergate.com)

On 2/13/2023 at 12:27 PM, Len Colby said:

Yes,

I read it. Fake peer review by other CTs.

That's the loony fringe's version of "peer review." They knew if they submitted that "paper" to regular, genuine peer review, it would have been torn to shreds and exposed as the trash it is. 

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The person who said that did so because Trump was a really bad president (as I showed in my prior post), not because he is a rabid partisan.

Your statement could be a textbook example of extreme bias and of treating opinion as established fact. 

A rabid conservative, using your same awful logic, could say that anyone who supported Obama is extremely untrustworthy. And, when challenged about this statement, they could reply, "I said what I said because Obama was a really bad president, not because I am a rabid partisan." 

Here are some established facts: The Moon landings happened; 9/11 was not an inside job; the WTC towers were not destroyed by controlled demolitions; the Earth is not flat, etc. Virtually all established facts have a few fringe doubters, but the vast majority of educated people and of the general population recognize them as established facts.

The opinion that Donald Trump was a really bad president does not even come close to being an established fact. Similarly, the opinion that Barack Obama was a really bad president does not remotely qualify as an established fact. And only rabid partisans at each end of the spectrum would deny this. 

17 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michael Griffith and Fred Litwin are the price we all have to pay for our First Amendment right to free speech.

Disinformation and slander are unethical, but not illegal.

You know this is dishonest. It is also illogical.

Much of my information on Prouty comes mainly from liberal sources, namely, Chip Berlet and the ADL.  The rest of my information comes from Prouty himself and from pro-Prouty sources.

Neither Litwin nor McAdams wrote Prouty's supportive letter to the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal. Neither Litwin nor McAdams wrote Prouty's letter, found at the National Archives, in which Prouty expressed concern about Jewish sergeants running targeting computers. Neither Litwin nor McAdams forced Prouty to speak at one of the IHR's Holocaust-denying conventions, nor did they produce the IHR journal's announcement of Prouty's appearance at the conference. Nor did Litwin or McAdams force Prouty to appear on Liberty Lobby's white-supremacist, anti-Semitic radio show 10 times in four years (documented by each date of appearance by the ADL). Nor did Litwin or McAdams compel Prouty to praise Carto and Marcellus. Nor did they feed Prouty the damning answers he gave to the ARRB. Nor did they write Prouty's sleazy defenses of the Scientology cult and its fraudulent founder. You get the idea. 

Rather than deal credibly and candidly with the evidence about Prouty, you keep falsely portraying this as a right-wing attack on him. You know full well that plenty of liberals have also discussed Prouty's fraudulent claims and sleazy relationships with Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. You also know that much of the damning information comes from Prouty himself and/or from pro-Prouty sources.

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

More "Odio" Banter....

In 2012, I archived a pretty good "Sylvia Odio" Internet discussion, featuring Jean Davison and John McAdams:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/03/sylvia-odio-part-2.html

If this were any other case, the Odio sisters' story would be universally regarded as credible and important. But WC apologists simply cannot allow themselves to accept the Odios' account because it poses unsolvable problems for the lone-gunman theory. WC apologists hold the Odio sisters to a markedly unreasonable standard, a standard that they never apply to pro-WC witnesses, and a standard that would be dismissed as invalid and excessively biased by any competent prosecutor.

To its great credit, and to G. Robert Blakey's great credit, the HSCA concluded that the Odio sisters' account was credible, and the HSCA report does a good job of answering the WC's excuses for rejecting it:

Findings | National Archives (pp. 138-140)

Here is some of what I say about Posner's attack on Silvia Odio in my online book Hasty Judgment:

          Posner strongly questions the credibility of Silvia Odio, who reported a very specific and disturbing Oswald impersonation involving anti-Castro Cubans (6:175-180). Posner paints her as an emotionally unstable woman who either imagined her story or made it up to get attention. Posner's attack, however, is both slanted and incomplete. The available evidence supports Mrs. Odio's story. A senior Warren Commission staffer wrote, "Mrs. Odio has checked out thoroughly," and called her "the most significant witness linking Oswald to the anti-Castro Cubans" (14:389-390). The House Select Committee examined Mrs. Odio's story and also concluded it was credible (11:480). Similarly, British scholar Matthew Smith studied the relevant evidence and came away convinced that Mrs. Odio was reliable (15:257-259).

          Posner seeks to exploit the fact that Mrs. Odio did not tell her story to the authorities right away. Yet, as Posner surely ought to know, Mrs. Odio was afraid to go to the authorities. In fact, she did not discuss her experience with official investigators until the FBI approached her after a series of private conversations about it came to the attention of an FBI agent. Only after the FBI contacted her did she discuss her story with government representatives. 

          Incredibly, as part of his attack on Mrs. Odio, Posner quotes Carlos Bringuier. This is the same Carlos Bringuier who, in 1963, was a CIA contact in New Orleans, a fanatical right-wing Cuban exile, and the propaganda secretary for the CIA-sponsored Cuban Revolutionary Council (11:389-390). (Posner describes Bringuier merely as an "anti-Castro leader.") It was Bringuier who picked that suspicious "fight" with Oswald in New Orleans. Bringuier's original anti-Castro headquarters was located in Guy Banister's building on 544 Camp Street. Oddly enough, this address appeared on one of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba leaflets. Many assassination researchers suspect Bringuier and Banister of having participated in the framing of Oswald as the patsy for the assassination. (LINK)

I think it is revealing and instructive that WC apologists accept the problem-riddled accounts of such witnesses as Helen Markham, William Whaley, Howard Brennan, and Domingo Benavides, but they bend over backward to reject the Odio sisters' account. 

On 5/17/2023 at 1:14 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@William Paris I agree and we should widely promote his views. 

@W. Niederhut I think it is better for RFK Jr to stick with the Douglass book. The other books are too strident for the masses and the authors more controversial. Douglass is unassailable.   

Unfortunately, Douglass is very assailable. He is a 9/11 Truther. 

JFK Revisited is not strident, but unfortunately it repeats the myth that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. However, the rest of the documentary is so good that I still recommend it. The segment on Vietnam is brief. One error, even an inexcusable one, cannot cancel out so much valid and important information.

JFK: Destiny Betrayed, however, is another matter. It contains a number of unfortunate statements that stem from the far-left political views of its producers/authors. This is why I don't recommend it on my website. 

Sadly, the best books on the RFK case contain varying amounts of liberal politics. The mildest offender is Tate and Johnson's excellent book The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: Crime Conspiracy & Cover-Up: A New Investigation.

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

 

Some ardent partisans regard every post, probably every conversation, through red/blue kool-aid pissing war lenses.  

Exactly. Many of them seem to care more about their partisan politics than about the JFK case.

I am somewhat taken aback by the cool reception afforded RFK Jr. in the EF-JFKA.

Let's hope that changes if his poll numbers become serious, i.e., if he starts polling at over 30%. Right now, he seems to have maxed out at 21%. 

20 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

But did JFK and his team have access to those north Vietnamese sources at the time?

No, but JFK was receiving a wealth of accurate information on the war's progress from multiple sources, including Harkins and the British mission in Saigon (especially Sir Robert Thompson, the legendary British counterinsurgency expert). The problem was that JFK was also receiving lots of distortions and falsehoods about the war from Hilsman, Forrestal, McNaughton, Ball, Harriman, and Lodge (sometimes), etc.

One key point about the North Vietnamese sources is that they prove that those who were reporting to JFK that the war was going well were correct. 

Yet, Newman seems unaware of the historic information in the North Vietnamese sources. Throughout his book, Newman assumes that those who were telling JFK the war was going well were feeding him false information. 

The only two liberal historians who have made any use of the North Vietnamese sources have been Greg Daddis and Max Hastings. Daddis has made very limited, selective use of them, whereas Hastings has made substantial use of them. If other liberal scholars have used them, I stand ready to be corrected.

Conservative scholars have been the ones who have made the most extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources, since those sources demolish virtually every liberal myth about the war, which also probably explains why most liberal scholars have ignored them.

One "centrist" scholar, Dr. Lien-Hang Nguyen, has also made extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources. I put "centrist" in quotes because Dr. Nguyen is hard to categorize. She is Vietnamese. She takes a very measured approach. She goes out of her way to avoid making strident statements and absolutist pronouncements on the war. Anyway, her excellent and widely acclaimed book Hanoi's War makes extensive use of the North Vietnamese sources. Overall, generally speaking, her position on the war falls slightly to the right of center.  

21 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Are there no limits on Michael Griffith's incessant disinformation posts around here?

He continues to "flood the zone" with McAdams-esque propaganda tropes, while mislabeling forum members as, "rabid ideologues," "nutcases," and "ultra liberals" who "lack critical thinking skills," etc.

It's garbage.  Disinformazia.

It's all about repeating defamatory sales jingles, ("Swift Boat Vetting") and decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio for important revelations about the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

William,

He does not get it from McAdams. 

He gets it from Litwin.

Ask Jeff.

This silliness reinforces my point about the dividing line in the research community between serious research and fringe research, between using valid sources and using discreditable sources, between advancing rational theories and peddling wingnut theories. Actually, the information on Prouty's false claims and sleazy associations comes from the following:

-- Prouty's own books

-- Prouty's ARRB interview

-- Prouty's supportive letter to the editor of the IHR's journal, in which he praised the IHR's goals

-- The IHR's announcement of the speakers at the then-upcoming Holocaust-denial conference at which Prouty spoke

-- Prouty's comments in the speech he delivered at a Liberty Lobby convention, in which, among other things, he praised Carto and Marcellus for agreeing to publish one of his books

-- The Anti-Defamation League; specifically, the ADL article that listed who had appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio program and how many times they had appeared--the ADL documented that Prouty appeared on the show 10 times in a four-year period

-- A letter that Prouty wrote to a fellow researcher in which he expressed concern about Jewish sergeants running targeting computers during air combat operations

-- Prouty's shameful attacks on critics of the Scientology cult and its crooked founder, L. Ron Hubbard, and his equally shameful--and nutty--defense of Hubbard

-- The IHR's list of books it had published, which included one of Prouty's books (and, again, Prouty's praising of Carto and Marcellus for agreeing to republish the book during his speech at a Liberty Lobby convention)

-- Prouty's sleazy dodge of "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Carto's Holocaust denial

-- Liberty Lobby's newspaper The Spotlight, which praised Prouty on several occasions and which proudly repeated Prouty's recommendation that people read the anti-Semitic rag

The ADL can hardly be accused of harboring right-wing sentiments. Similarly, another major source that has documented most of these facts about Prouty is Chip Berlet, an ultra-liberal journalist who has dedicated much of his career to exposing far-right activities, so he can hardly be accused of being a right-wing source either. 

Yes, McAdams and Litwin have also discussed most of these shady aspects of Prouty's views and conduct. So what? A fact is a fact, regardless of who cites it or repeats it. Just because you don't agree with Litwin about the JFK case does not mean that everything Litwin says about Prouty is automatically wrong. In point of fact, Litwin's criticisms of Prouty are based on solid evidence, most of it coming from Prouty himself and from the IHR journal.

But even when an ardent ultra-liberal like Berlet makes many of the the same fact-based observations about Prouty that McAdams and Litwin make, you and other Prouty apologists refuse to face reality about Prouty. One of you even claimed that Berlet is not really a liberal.

You two are a dream-come-true for WC apologists. Indeed, anyone who keeps using Prouty as a source and who continues to defend him is a dream-come-true for WC apologists. When you cite Prouty as a source, all LNers have to do is recite just some of Prouty's bogus claims and/or just some of his shameful conduct (e.g., speaking at an IHR conference, praising the IHR's goals, recommending The Spotlight, praising Carto and Marcellus, having a book republished by the IHR, appearing numerous times on Liberty Lobby's radio show, etc., etc.).

49 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

There are others more learned on the primary materials than me, but this just comes across to me as about the most sensible explanation of the issue of JFK and Vietnam.

Isn't it obvious: a pullout from Vietnam and South Vietnam would not stand. Everybody knew it, including Nixon when he promised to end the war via a secret plan in 1968, trust me, then promised again in 1972 that he really, really would do it if elected again, and this time he did ... and South Vietnam fell. The choices therefore were a permanent South Korea-like situation in which major US military force parked in a southeast Asian country prevents reunification of that country from a northern communist (and popular) government. Or, withdrawal and a North Vietnamese takover of South Vietnam.

And I am convinced JFK was intent on getting out of Vietnam (contrary to Michael Griffith), and that the reason for doing it in 1965 instead of 1963 was because of the knowledge that South Vietnam would fall, that would be a political hit, and these things of life and death for millions of innocent people in other parts of the world get decided based on US election cycle considerations.

Very unlikely JFK would have gone in full like LBJ did, it seems to me. It seems like a real difference in counterfactual history depending on whether JFK had continued as president into a second term. However I do not think Vietnam was a major reason for JFK's assassination. No evidence it was, and I just don't see high plausibility that it would have been a major factor. The difference in outcome in Vietnam was a consequence of JFK's assassination, but not the reason he was assassinated. That would be like assassinating Biden for planning to pull out of Afghanistan--generals argue this way and that way on these things, but it isn't in itself cause to assassinate.

I would encourage you to read Selverstone's new book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Among other things, Selverstone documents that the White House tapes show that JFK privately expressed his determination to win the war over and over and over again. Again, these were his private comments, and they exactly mirrored every public statement he made on the subject in the last months of his life. 

A key thing that we must understand, to put the situation in its proper context, is that by 1963 the war was going very well. Newly available/disclosed North Vietnamese sources confirm this fact. The war was going so well, the South Vietnamese army and local forces were doing such a good job of attacking and defeating Communist forces, that even Max Taylor believed we could safely start withdrawing American troops, and this was a key factor behind the withdrawal plan. 

One of the biggest flaws with Newman's book is that he makes the erroneous assumption that the war was going badly, when in fact we know from a wide range of sources--including North Vietnamese sources--that the war was going quite well. The problem is that Newman chooses to believe the likes of Forrestal, Hilsman, Harriman, Halberstam, etc., and appears unaware of the historic new information from North Vietnamese sources.

Another crucial fact to understand is that the withdrawal plan called for the continuation of aid to South Vietnam even if the situation on the ground enabled us to withdraw all U.S. military personnel (even then, a small support force was to remain in country). There was never any intention to abandon South Vietnam after the election, and Bobby himself confirmed this fact in his April 1964 oral interview.

Again, if you care about this issue, I suggest you read Selverstone's new book. 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Michael, some of your analyses on some things strikes home, but not here. I might be in your (ultra-?) liberal category, as a Bernie Sanders Democrat, formerly Nader Green and Kucinich Democrat. RFK Jr. as "radical leftist" is a red herring since I don't think anyone has ever claimed that, but what I do believe is defensible is that RFK Jr. is true traditional moderate left in continuity with the rhetoric in his father's 1968 presidential campaign and the idealism surrounding progressive support for JFK before that. 

Specifically: willingness to confront and if necessary attack large corporations and institutionalized powers of wealth against capture of government and regulatory processes (not as in the libertarian non-sequitur as an argument for abolishing regulatory mechanisms and oversight of corporate behavior as in oligarchs' wet dreams, but for non-captured actual regulation in the public interest).

Specifically: an anti-imperialism, anti-colonial ideological stance in foreign policy.

Specifically: strong action involving the power of policies of big government toward ending poverty and blight of tens of millions at the bottom end of an unequal society.  

Specifically: no racism, no bashing of minorities, no "othering" and demonizing of minorities.

Specifically: stance favorable to labor unionization

Specifically: strong stance on civil liberties

Specifically: a politics of compassion for the left-behinds domestically and in the world. 

Specifically: regulation of "the commons" as e.g. in the matter of global warming

I have looked at RFK Jr. recently (specifically among others the Crystal Ball interview). All of the above are traditional progressive and RFK Jr. is there. 

The Democratic power-brokers should carefully consider that RFK Jr. may become the antiwar candidate, speaking of Ukraine which is becoming a Vietnam redux issue. RFK Jr. I think got it right in his Crystal Ball interview: the motive to help Ukraine against the unconscionable invasion of Putin started out right. But the continuing war is horrible in its effect on the people of Ukraine now and needs to be ended (which although he did not say so, means cutting a deal and probable partition, as less horrible than continued war).

RFK Jr.'s call for border control is a distinct issue from bashing of immigrants who come in legally or who have come in illegally in the past and should have a path to legal residency and/or citizenship. His call for border control is actually the mainstream Democratic position as well as a Republican one, despite bashing of Democrats with straw man representations otherwise--the issues concern effectiveness and competence and policies in achieving that agreed objective.

Therefore your "radical left" is a straw man, but if that is rephrased to mainstream "progressive left", RFK Jr. is there and I do not see that as a false front. He may have gotten it wrong on the science of autism and the mercury theory. But he is no alt-right conservative, no Trumper, no proto-fascist from the populist right. 

RFK Jr. is the closest thing to the 1968 RFK Sr. campaign and values on the map today as I see it. I don't know where this is going to go. The nightmare scenario, from my point of view, is a Trump presidency in 2024 in which Trump this time would get control of the executive branch which he did not last time, and an era of an American form of real fascism in full bloom.  

I come from Akron, Ohio and know people, Quakers and others, who knew Kucinich personally and long supported Kucinich in Kucinich's earlier campaigns. Now RFK Jr. has picked Kucinich to be his campaign manager, a natural alliance given the antiwar issue on the Democratic side. Of course Kucinich had problems getting votes, unlike Bernie Sanders who got lots of votes. 

I realize there is a spectre of a third-party run by RFK Jr. if he does not get the Democratic nomination which from all rational expectations is practically a certainty. And third-party runs by a "good" candidate result in electing the relatively worse of the two major-party candidates, due to the winner-take all electors' policies of 48 out of 50 of the states who have made individual state choices to run elections that way. 

Here is how I would address the third-party issue if I were part of the RFK Jr. campaign: publicly set up this policy in advance and early. If at the end of the campaign (for the Democratic nomination) RFK Jr. is behind in polling in matchups against the Republican nominee (e.g. Trump), compared to the Democratic nominee (e.g. Biden), and if RFK Jr. is behind in polling of grassroots Democrats' support for the Democratic nominee, RFK Jr. will stand down and endorse the Democratic nominee while continuing as an antiwar voice internal to the Democratic Party struggling for the soul of the Democratic Party within that Party. 

But if RFK Jr. is ahead in polling of grassroots Democrats, and ahead in matchup polls nationally in the general election against Trump, the Democratic Party should stand down its nominee and endorse RFK Jr. in the general for the presidency, for the good of America (if a Trump presidency is the alternative).

Again I do not know where this is going to go. But this is how it looks to me at this point.  

I agree with much of what you say here and appreciate your thoughtful comments.

FYI, based on your comments, I would not classify you as an ultra-liberal. Also, a person can be ultra-liberal without embracing the nutty 9/11 Truther claims, fake Moon landings, suspicious Israel bashing, etc., etc. That's why I limited my comments to the ultra-liberals "in this forum," most of whom embrace various nutty claims, at least most of the ones I've seen here.

I believe that Dennis Kucinich would be willing to speak at Hillsdale College, whereas I doubt that Bernie Sanders would. RFK Jr. not only spoke there but praised the college for its defense of freedom. In case you don't know, Hillsdale College is a very conservative private Christian college.

I dearly hope that RFK Jr.'s campaign gains traction in the Dem primary. If RFK Jr., by some miracle, were to get the Dem nomination, and if the GOP were foolish enough to renominate Trump, I'd almost certainly vote for RFK Jr. The only way I could see myself not voting for RFK Jr. in that scenario would be if he picked someone as radical and shallow as Kamala Harris as his running mate. 

1 hour ago, Pete Mellor said:

No civilized country in the world is without a strict system for entering, much less residing, within its borders without first applying for and receiving proper permission and paperwork.

Well then, the U.K. is completely un-civilised.

Uhhhh, the UK is an island. Right? That's a much different situation than sharing a border hundreds of miles long with another country or countries.

And are you saying that the UK has no system for entering and residing in its territory? When my wife and daughter visited the UK four years ago, it took them nearly two months and lots of paperwork to get a visa to enter the country for one week. 

Having a border that anyone can cross at will without proper authorization is like owning a house but having no control over who enters your front door and your back door and having no control over how long they stay in your house. 

1 hour ago, Joseph Backes said:

I don't know if I'm the first to discover this but AMMUG-1 is Vladimir Rodriguiz.  I'm surprised this is not on MFF.  I emailed Rex today with this.  

See RIF#104-10161-10263. 

Also RIF#180-10143-10400.  

Joe

I think his last name is Rodriquez (Vladimir Lahere Rodriguez).

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Oh please with HRW.

Same thing with Cuba.

Except in Vietnam you have much more trade and tourism.

Yeah, all those shops and stores and singing on a Saturday night,  that really looks like  brutal communist repression.  Gulag all the way.

Huh? What does this have to do with my point that your baseless tar-brush attack on the Miller Center is further evidence that you are a rabid ideologue who doesn't know what he's talking about on the Vietnam War? 

"Enough with HRW [Human Rights Watch]" and the video of "stores and singing on a Saturday night" in one city in Vietnam???!!! This is genuine wingnut material. It is also  shameful propaganda that ignores the mountain of evidence of egregious human rights abuses in Vietnam, which started with the reign of terror that North Vietnam imposed on the South Vietnamese after the war. 

My goodness, so now you're attacking Human Rights Watch! Why? Because HRW has never stopped telling the truth about the brutality and oppression of Communist rule in Vietnam. But, since you can't face the truth about Communist Vietnam, you are now attacking HRW. Anyone can Google "Human Rights Watch" and learn about the group's noble history and its work in defense of human rights around the globe. Here's a short blurb from Wikipedia's article on HRW:

          Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an international non-governmental organization headquartered in New York City that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. The group pressures governments, policymakers, companies, and individual human rights abusers to denounce abuse and respect human rights, and often works on behalf of refugees, children, migrants, and political prisoners.

          In 1997, Human Rights Watch shared the Nobel Peace Prize as a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. It played a leading role in the 2008 treaty banning cluster munitions. . . .

          Pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Human Rights Watch opposes violations of what the UDHR considers basic human rights. This includes capital punishment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. HRW advocates freedoms in connection with fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press. It seeks to achieve change by publicly pressuring governments and their policymakers to curb human rights abuses, and by convincing more powerful governments to use their influence on governments that violate human rights.

18 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I have yet to see any compelling information to suggest Prouty was anything other than who he said he was - i.e. a retired military man whose career had provided remarkable access to extraordinary events.

You have "yet to see" this information because you are so emotionally committed to Prouty's nutcase claims that you either ignore the information or you wave it away with pitiful excuses. 

The use of Prouty as a credible source is a clear and bright dividing line in the research community. It is the line between researchers who make a credible and reasonable case for conspiracy and researchers who blacken and discredit the case for conspiracy by treating Prouty as a reliable source in spite of his shameful, discreditable record.

And I find it revealing that many of the same researchers who refuse to face reality about Prouty are some of the same people who peddle 9/11 Truther trash, who repeatedly bash Israel at every opportunity (often repeating Muslim terrorist claims about Israel in the process), and who frequently argue that anyone who disagrees with their liberal politics can't be trusted on the JFK case (or on any other historical or political issue).

It will be curious to see what happens when the ultra-liberals in this forum discover that RFK Jr. is not a radical leftist and does not share their rabidly partisan mindset.  Perhaps they will simply ignore reality and pretend that he agrees with them, just as they have done with JFK. 

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous your argument is here? Have you ever taken a 101 course in logic or critical thinking? I ask because you don't seem to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. 

You present your opinion of Trump as a fact; indeed, you present your view of Trump's performance as a fact that is so clearly established and widely acknowledged that you believe that anyone who disagrees with it has, by this act alone, given you "good reason to doubt" their judgment about history and politics. Such a position shows a severe lack of basic logic and critical thinking skills, not to mention a lack of objectivity and balance.

Your stance is a modest step back from Allen Lowe's discreditable claim that anyone who supports Trump is "extremely untrustworthy," but it still shows a marked lack of basic reasoning skills. 

This might be news to you, but when Donald Trump ran for reelection in 2020, the majority of voters in 25 out of 50 states voted for him. 74.2 million Americans voted for him, constituting 47% of all voters. He received 12 million more votes than he did in 2016. (And, for the sake of argument and brevity, we'll just ignore the evidence of serious election fraud in seven key states in the 2020 election, such as, to cite just one example, the unprecedented, historic, and gigantic disparity between Biden's alleged vote total and his number of counties won.)

I might just add that until the pandemic hit, Trump had given us the best economy we had seen since the 1990s. For the first time in eight years, we saw an increase in the vital area of manufacturing jobs (we actually suffered a net loss in such jobs under Obama). My personal take home pay increased by nearly $300 per month thanks to the Trump tax cuts. Capital that was parked overseas began to flow back to America after Trump lowered our corporate income tax rate from the insane level of 35% down to the competitive level of 21% (the average corporate income tax rate in Asia ranges between 18% and 21%). The average price of gas stayed well below $3 per gallon during the entirety of Trump's presidency. Under Trump, the real estate market stayed near historic highs. Under Trump, inflation never rose above 2.3% (under Biden, it's averaged over 6%). We became a net exporter of energy again for the first time in ages under Trump. Trump scrapped the fatally flawed NAFTA trade deal and replaced it with the far better (and more pro-labor) USMCA. As most vets will tell you, Trump made substantial improvements in VA health care for veterans. 

Could these facts be why Trump won 25 states and received 47% of the popular vote when he ran for reelection in 2020, even according to the official final tally, in spite of his frequently rude and unpresidential behavior, his pettiness, his crassness, and his combativeness? 

Now, if we were talking about the 9/11 Truther claims, that would be a very different matter, since the overwhelming majority of educated people reject them as nutty, bizarre, obscene, and baseless, and since virtually all scientists who have examined those claims have found them to be nutty, bizarre, obscene, and baseless. So, yes, you could reasonably say that if someone embraced 9/11 Truther nuttiness, that would be a valid reason for questioning their reasoning, judgment, and credibility. It should be mentioned that you embrace those whacky claims.

Or, if we were talking about such other fringe theories such as the claim that the Holocaust never happened or that the Moon landings were faked, yes, in those cases, you could reasonably say that if someone embraced those claims, that would be a valid reason for questioning their reasoning, judgment, and credibility. 

But it is ridiculous to say that just because Mamet supports Trump, "we have good reason to doubt his judgment" or that he is automatically "extremely untrustworthy." Such talk indicates an extremist, rabidly ideological, and uneducated mindset. 

8 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

It's not about ideology, Michael, as you mistakenly imagine.

It's about historical facts vs. fiction-- reality vs. alternate reality.

Obama made some mistakes, (especially by acquiescing to the Gates/Neocon military ops) but the fact-based historical consensus is that he "did a good job" as POTUS-- ranking as one of the better Presidents in our history.

Conversely, Trump was a corrupt, inept disaster-- ranking among America's worst Presidents.

Ergo, if someone claims that Obama "did a bad job," or that "Trump did a good job," we have good reasons for doubting their judgment about matters of historical fact.

Ideology isn't the issue, per se.  Historical accuracy is the issue.

If David Mamet thinks that "Trump did a good job," we have good reason to doubt his judgment about history and politics.

Oh my goodness. Take a course in critical thinking. It is pointless trying to reason with you.

Fletcher Prouty may well have been an infiltrator sent by the plotters to discredit the case for conspiracy. I don't know how this plausible possibility has not occurred to more researchers. Certainly Prouty has done more damage to the case for conspiracy than any other supposedly friendly source has done.

Prouty seemingly did all he could to destroy his own credibility, but the research community did not realize his sleazy baggage until they had run with many of his most outlandish claims, especially in the movie JFK. Yet, even when Prouty's obscene actions, statements, and associations came to light, many researchers refused to repudiate him and have continued to offer lame excuses for his conduct.