Michael Griffith

This is delusional echo-chamber material. Yes, the documentary evidence is overwhelming, but that evidence decidedly refutes the Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal myth. "McNamara admitted it"??? Really? You sure about that? Nowhere in his memoir did McNamara claim that JFK was determined to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. No such statement appears therein. He stopped well short of making such a claim. If you're referring to McNamara's so-called "secret debrief," isn't it odd and revealing that he said nothing about it in his memoir? Not one word. Humm? And not one of his adoring aides appeared to know anything about it, not even John McNaughton (not even in his personal diary, which surfaced a few years ago--zippo, nada, nothing). Yes, certainly, JFK had a withdrawal plan, but you and a few others simply refuse to acknowledge the undeniable fact that the plan was conditional, that it depended on the situation on the ground. Furthermore, as even Galbraith has admitted, JFK's plan called for continuing aid to South Vietnam after the situation on the ground permitted the withdrawal of American forces. This is a far cry from the Stone-Newman-Prouty myth that JFK was unalterably going to abandon South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. And let's just be clear about one key fact: The Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal theory is a fringe view that is rejected by the vast majority of historians and Vietnam War scholars from all across the political spectrum. This is not conservative vs. liberal. This is broad consensus vs. fringe. This is overwhelming majority vs. microscopic minority.

Your comment shows that you are another person in this forum who allows your rabid left-wing partisan politics to dominate your thinking on the JFK case. You folks seem to use the JFK case merely as a vehicle to peddle your political views, and who says or implies that no one can truly care about JFK's death if they don't agree with your politics. Jim Marrs, author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy, one of the most successful pro-conspiracy books ever published, was an ardent Trump supporter. Are you now going to suggest that we should all burn our copies of Crossfire? Half the country thinks that Trump did a good job. However, very few people agree with Oliver Stone's recent embarrassing claim that Putin is a "great leader" for Russia.

Why do we need another thread on this topic?

I agree that the Durham report is important, devastating, and damning. However, in case you don't already know, this forum is dominated by liberals, many of whom are extremely liberal. The liberal MSM is already in full denial mode about the report's devastating disclosures regarding government misconduct toward Trump and the fabrication of the Russia-collusion myth. All this being said, I must confess that I don't see how the Durham report relates to the JFKA in any way. Yes, it's true that the moderators allow people to repeatedly peddle the 9/11 Truther garbage, to engage in shameful bashing of Israel, to champion the anti-Semitic fraud Fletcher Prouty, and to float such bizarre theories as the idea that the Secret Team murdered John Lennon, but, hey, it's their forum and they are free to do what they want.

No, you're the one who's in a cult. "Right-wingers"??? Even most liberal historians reject the myth that you and a few others here insist on peddling. Do you know who Ed Moise is? Do you know who Stanley Karnow was? You guys keep pretending that this is a conservative vs. liberal issue, when it is actually a broad consensus vs. fringe issue. Only a tiny fringe of authors still argue that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Like a dog with a favorite bone that has long since rotted, you guys just cannot let go of this long-debunked myth, no matter how much damage it continues to do to the case for conspiracy. Anti-conspiracy authors from all across the political spectrum pounced on this myth as a way to discredit Stone's movie JFK, and yet you guys still continue to hand them this ammo over and over and over again. Even with the release of Selverstone's magnificent book The Kennedy Withdrawal, which proves from the White House tapes that JFK was determined to win the war, you guys still won't face reality. Scholars from both sides of the spectrum have praised Selverstone's book, but a tiny handful of fringe authors refuse to face reality and continue to attack it. There comes a point when facts must overrule pet theories, no matter how many years you have spent peddling those theories, and no matter how emotionally attached you are to them. What Michael Tracey was able to do will be repeated ad nauseum until you folks finally gather up enough objectivity to acknowledge the facts on this issue and stop peddling the Stone-Newman-Prouty unconditional-withdrawal myth. It would also help greatly if you and your friends would stop citing such a disreputable, irrational, anti-Semitic fraud as Fletcher Prouty.

You might want to explain why you think this is important.

You know this is false. My main sources on Prouty are ultra-liberal journalist Chip Berlet, the ADL, and Prouty's own writings, actions, and interviews. I have never once used John McAdams as a source on Prouty, even though, sad to say, most of McAdams' criticisms of Prouty are valid. It is mind boggling that you continue to defend Prouty after all we now know about him. If a lone-gunman theorist said and did half the zany and disreputable things that Prouty said and did, you would not hesitate to use those things against him, and you would be entirely justified in doing so. But because you are wed to Prouty's wild theories, you refuse to face reality about him.

Posner's book on SS doctor and war criminal Josef Mengele (Mengele: The Complete Story) is also quite good. It is curious how some people can be objective and accurate on some subjects but severely biased and inaccurate on other subjects. Posner did far more research for his book on Mengele than he did for his book on the JFK case.

No bullet exited JFK's throat. The rear clothing holes establish that the back wound was far too low to have enabled a bullet to exit the throat. No photo or footage shows JFK's coat with the kind of bunch that would have been required to cause the bullet to make holes that far down in the coat and shirt. The very idea that the shirt could have bunched in virtually millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with the coat is preposterous. We now know from ARRB-released records and other sources that on the night of the autopsy, the pathologists were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point. In his ARRB interview, Boswell stated that once they removed the chest organs, the stiffness of the muscles/tissue was no longer a problem and that they were then able to properly probe the wound. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. The irregular shirt slits were not made by a bullet. Even the FBI lab admitted this by concluding that the slits appeared to have been made by a fragment. Dr. Mantik examined the slits at the National Archives and saw clear indications that they were made by a scalpel. He also found that no fabric was missing from the slits, which is significant because bullets remove fabric when they tear through clothing. What's more, any bullet exiting through the slits could not have missed JFK's tie. However, the tie has no hole through it, and has no nick on either edge. The only defect is a small nick on the knot that is clearly not on the edge of the knot. If a bullet had exited the throat, it would not have created a small (3-5 mm) wound that was punched inward. It would have created a larger and avulsed wound.

With the aid of JFK's own words, especially the telling clip that Katie Helper plays to open the debate, Michael Tracey pounces on the biggest gaffe and flaw in Stone's movie JFK, i.e., the claim that JFK was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. Every recorded or written statement that we have from JFK himself refutes this idea. Aaron Good is apparently unaware that a number of the people close to JFK, including Bobby, rejected the idea that Kennedy was going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. I'm guessing Aaron Good does not know about the evidence from the White House tapes presented in Selverstone's book The Kennedy Withdrawal. Over and over again on those tapes we hear JFK express a desire to win the war. So we're not just talking about Kennedy's public statements but also his confidential statements made in White House meetings. I'll tell you, folks, the longer some of you continue to cling to this post-election-unconditional-withdrawal myth, the longer the case for conspiracy is going to be discredited by association with this myth.

Oh, I have no problem with a shot at around Z160. I agree there is good evidence that a shot was fired at that time. I just don't think it came from the TSBD. A shot fired from a lower floor of the Dal-Tex Building could have narrowly missed JFK and also missed the limousine. And the idea that a Z160 shot from the sixth-floor sniper's nest could have caused the Tague wounding is the stuff of comical fantasy.

I encourage you to read the recent thread on Fletcher Prouty before you use him again as a source (LINK). Prouty was a fraud, if not a genuine nutcase. He was an anti-Semite who spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, appeared numerous times on an anti-Semitic radio show, praised the work of the Holocaust-denying IHR, recommended an anti-Semitic newspaper, and had a book published by the IHR's publishing arm, among other disreputable actions. When Prouty was gently interviewed by the ARRB, he back-peddled all over the place about key claims he'd been making for years (e.g., his claims about the South Pole trip, recognizing Lansdale in a tramp photo, his alleged "stand down" call with the 112th MI Group, his role in presidential protection, etc.). And, Prouty devoted considerable effort to defending the Scientology cult, to the point of attacking the cult's critics, in addition to making nutty claims about the deaths of FDR and Princess Diana.

Holy cow, you are still repeating these misleading, discredited claims after the facts I presented to you in our exchanges on Selverstone's book??? Unbelievable. For the sake of others who may be new to this subject, yes, JFK did have a withdrawal plan, but, as even James K. Galbraith has admitted, that plan was conditional and also called for a continuation of aid to South Vietnam even if conditions on the ground permitted the withdrawal of troops. This is a far cry from the Stone-Newman-Prouty fiction in the movie JFK. The record is crystal clear, from the White House tapes to JFK's comments in the last few months before Dallas (including the day of Dallas), that JFK had no intention of abandoning South Vietnam after the election. Selverstone's widely acclaimed new book The Kennedy Withdrawal thoroughly documents this fact. I should add that even most liberal historians, including ultra-liberals such as Edwin Moise and Stanley Karnow, have rejected the Stone-Newman-Prouty fiction that JFK was going to totally disengage from South Vietnam after the election regardless of the consequences. It is simply inexcusable and discreditable to keep repeating this myth. If nothing else, we need to understand that the Stone-Newman-Prouty claim about JFK's Vietnam intentions is a fringe view that even most liberal scholars reject. This is why Jim DiEugenio was only able to cite one obscure, amateurish author who supports his rejection of Selverstone's book, whereas I was able to cite numerous recognized historians and long-time Vietnam War scholars, from both sides of the political spectrum, who have praised the book (see our discussion on the book in LINK).

Oh, sheesh. Seriously? I was not "inferring" anything. FYI, "infer" means the opposite of "imply" or "hint." You know, "you imply and I infer"? And, no, I was not implying that another member is an infiltrator. Yes, obviously, I was being sarcastic, as you noted. When Niederhut posted his nutty accusation that I am an infiltrator, did you object to that?

HUH????? He never mentioned Trump, and he said nothing critical about Biden. He only noted that Biden is the incumbent. His post focused releasing all the JFK records. And your complaint is ironic and hypocritical given how many times you've posted 9/11 Truther trash in this forum.

Lifton believed the pre-autopsy surgery was done on the plane en route to Bethesda, whereas Horne contends that it was done by Humes and Boswell about 30-40 minutes before the official autopsy. Lifton also believed the back wound may have been created as part of that surgery, whereas Horne does not. But, yes, both Lifton and Horne posit pre-autopsy surgery. When a bullet penetrates tissue, the tissue typically swells around it and holds it in place. The account of one of the extra bullets found at Bethesda is especially compelling because its author firmly believed in the WC's version of events and contacted Specter because he believed that this bullet had been accidentally overlooked. The man had no idea that the WC's theory could not accommodate the extra bullet he had personally seen that night. If we had the autopsy photos of the chest that several witnesses said were taken during the probing, we would know a lot more about the back wound. Of course there is no chain of possession for the suppressed chest photos because they were never allowed into the official record from the outset. We also have very credible evidence that photos of the head wounds are missing. One thing that is clear from the ARRB materials is that on the night of the autopsy, the pathologists were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point, which is why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound.

I'm not talking about Lifton's scenario but about the evidence that Doug Horne has presented regarding illicit surgery about 30-40 minutes before the official autopsy began. True, bullets do not typically, if ever, fall out of wounds. Nevertheless, there are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. Yes, we have the neck x-ray, but what happened to all the photos that several autopsy witnesses, including Humes, said were taken of the chest during the probing of the back wound? There must have been a compelling reason to suppress those photos. The back wound could have been made by a sizable metal fragment from a bullet that hit the curb near the limousine. We have credible evidence that at least one bullet did strike the curb during the shooting. The two small fragments on the back of his head could only have been ricochet fragments. Dr. Mantik's last two books, including his most recent one, make a strong case that the skull x-rays have been altered. He has also argued for alteration in his last two video-taped interviews. Yes, early on, he believed the skull x-rays were pristine, but further research caused him to change his mind.

From the linked article: David Mamet will direct 2 Days/1963, a drama scripted by Nicholas Celozzi that purports to tell how his great uncle, the notorious Chicago mobster Sam Giancana, arranged the assassination of President John F Kennedy as revenge for trying to bring down organized crime after the mob helped put JFK in the White House. Mamet, the twice Oscar-nominated scribe and Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright, will do a rewrite on Celozzi’s script. The film will be produced by Celozzi through his Monaco Films, with VP Michael Sportelli also producing. Bonnie Giancana, daughter of the late mobster, will be a consultant and executive producer. What exactly is the problem with this? The Mafia angle of the assassination plot is one place where we actually have some decent evidence that identifies credible suspects who had clear and compelling motives for wanting JFK dead (Giancana and Marcello). While I believe that the Mafia played a subordinate role in the plot, I see nothing wrong with exploring and focusing on the Mafia angle, partly because doing so bolsters the case for conspiracy. Let's remember that the Mafia clearly played a role in the cover-up by having Ruby silence Oswald. Ruby's numerous phone calls to Mafia contacts in the weeks leading up to the assassination likewise indicate a Mafia role. Let's also remember that Ferrie and Banister had Mafia ties.

What's the problem? It makes perfect sense. You need to get with the program. You've been pouring your paranoia Kool-Aid down the sink, haven't you? What about the man walking by the three tramps? Huh? Isn't he obviously Edward Lansdale? I know you can't see his face, but Fletcher Prouty, the paragon of credibility, insisted that he recognized the man's back as Lansdale's back (well, until he was asked about it by the ARRB anyway). And just never you mind that the man is wearing a ring and that Lansdale's son said he never wore rings (clearly, his son was covering up on orders from the CIA). Just because Prouty spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, praised the work of the Holocaust-denying IHR, recommended the anti-Semitic newspaper The Spotlight, questioned the wisdom of allowing Jewish sergeants to operate targeting computers during combat operations, appeared on an anti-Semitic radio show 10 times in four years, and said he was "no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial--these things don't mean we shouldn't trust his "remarkable" research on the JFK case.

Oh, no, no, no. No way. If you do not agree with my JFK assassination conspiracy theory, you are clearly a CIA/MIC infiltrator sent here to spread disinformation. Your gig is up. You have been uncovered. Confessssssssss!

We do not know that no bullet was found in the shallow back wound. This bullet could have been removed during Humes and Boswell's illicit pre-autopsy surgery on the body. The throat wound could have been made by a piece of glass from the windshield, as Dr. Mantik has suggested. Dr. Charles Carrico, who saw the throat wound, told the HSCA that the damage he saw beneath the surface of the wound proved that the projectile (whatever it was) 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) Another Dallas doctor speculated that the throat missile ranged downward into the chest. With so many missing autopsy photos and so many indications of alteration in the autopsy x-rays, we cannot say what was and was not found during the autopsy. There are credible reports that two extra bullets were found at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy.

One, if we look at how other government-backed assassinations were done/attempted, the idea that the Mafia was involved is plausible and logical. On several occasions, government operatives hired Mafia guys to do their dirty work. Two, the Mafia was definitely involved in the cover-up, i.e., Ruby's silencing of Oswald. Three, David Ferrie and Guy Bannister had Mafia ties. Four, the Mafia obviously had a powerful motive for wanting JFK dead, and for wanting Castro overthrown. Five, there is evidence that Mafia bosses Carlos Marcello and Sam Giancana were involved in the plot at some level. So what is with all the summary dismissals of the Mafia's involvement in the plot?

Some of Posner's arguments are downright zany. For example, he argues that the sixth-floor gunman fired his first shot at around Z160 and missed not only JFK but the entire gigantic limousine. Indeed, per Posner, this shot was so far off the mark that it missed the limo badly enough to hit a branch of the oak tree. To make matters worse, Posner claims that this wild miss was the shot that sent a lead core streaking toward the Tague curb and sent a chip flying toward Tague to cut his face (Case Closed, first edition pp. 320-326). I discuss some of the other problems with this fanciful scenario in my online book Hasty Judgment: To account for the wounding of Tague, Posner offers some downright fanciful speculation. According to Posner, the first bullet struck a limb of the oak tree, after which its lead core instantly separated from the metal jacketing and traveled in a straight line from the TSBD to the curb over 400 feet away, somehow landing with enough force to send concrete fragments streaking toward Tague! This is surely far-fetched. Even if we assume the lead core instantly shed its copper jacketing after the supposed tree-branch collision, would the core have had sufficient force over 400 feet later to send concrete flying fast enough to cut Tague's face? And how could Oswald, the alleged world-class marksman, have missed his target so badly that he hit a branch of the oak tree? How could he have aimed so poorly on his first shot when the first shot is usually the most accurate? For Posner's theory even to be possible, we would have to believe that the bullet struck the limb at a point where the limb was strong enough not to snap or bend from the force of the missile's impact. This means the bullet would have had to strike the limb at least a foot or two from its tip, which would have been a mind-boggling miss from the sniper's nest. It is worth pausing to note a glaring contradiction in Posner's scenario. According to Posner, when the first fully metal-jacketed Carcano missile struck a tree limb, this caused the lead core to separate from the copper jacketing. But, the next Carcano bullet supposedly transited Kennedy's neck, plowed through Connally's back, broke a rib bone and a hard wrist bone, and then penetrated the Governor's thigh, yet emerged in nearly perfect condition, with its lands and grooves intact, with no damage to its nose, and with no more than 4 grains lost from its substance.

Posner's book is one of the worst, most error-filled books ever written on the JFK case. Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case In Not Closed--A Reply to Gerald Posner's Book Case Closed

You have to understand that you are dealing with a community here that includes people who sometimes come across as downright paranoid.