Michael Griffith

16 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

The documentary evidence is overwhelming now.  It's ridiculous to contest it.  

The Dean Rusk lie has been shown to be a lie once NSAM 263 was declassified.  That doesn't matter to people like Michael.  He'll stull use Dean Rusk.  

The true historical record has been kept from the world by the misuse of the classification system.  John M Newman has gotten more declassified on the Vietnam War than anyone, and I mean, anyone, including Daniel Elsberg.  The lie had decades to take root and grow.  It's not surprising that lazy, idiotic academicians ignorant of recent declassifications regurgitate the lie. The lie is not going to shrivel up and die instantly.  But it will die. 

This argument is over.  The deniers lost.  The JFK was never going to withdraw fools have lost. We have the documentation now.  It's over.  

The deliberate editing of the JFK interview, to use only a portion of it with Cronkite without taking into account how much was changing in South Vietnam especially after that interview aired is beyond stupid.  Diem was still alive when that interview took place.  JFK was consistent at the Top Secret level, he was withdrawing.  Those records exist and we can see them now.  The problem is yes, JFK said differently in public. Why? Because he wanted to do it after he got re-elected.  That's why he was killed before he could be.  

I don't care what Ed Moise has to say about anything.  

McNamara has admitted it.  Game over.  

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.

15 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

we need to remember that Mamet is a Trump supporter and has been quoted as saying Trump did a great job; this immediately makes him, to my mind, extremely untrustworthy.

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. 

14 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Acclaimed filmmaker Oliver Stone is no stranger to controversy, particularly when it comes to his 1991 film "JFK," which delves into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The film takes a critical look at the official narrative of the Warren Commission and instead posits a complex conspiracy involving several elements of the U.S. government.

Key to Stone's interpretation is the character "Mr. X," portrayed by Donald Sutherland. This character is largely based on L. Fletcher Prouty, a former U.S. Air Force Colonel and Chief of Special Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff under JFK. Prouty was a well-known critic of the Warren Commission's conclusions and had intimate knowledge of U.S. covert operations during the time of JFK's presidency.

Given his direct involvement in U.S. Special Operations and his outspoken criticism of the official explanation, it's reasonable to ask: Did Prouty share more with Stone about the JFK assassination than is commonly known?

Oliver Stone's portrayal of the "Mr. X" character and the information conveyed in their pivotal conversation is intriguing and incendiary. It feeds directly into the film's conspiracy narrative, with "Mr. X" effectively serving as the mouthpiece for the plot. The character asserts that JFK's assassination was a coup d'etat carried out by the military-industrial complex, a notion that Prouty himself suggested in his writings and interviews.

So, did Fletcher Prouty reveal more to Oliver Stone? Did he admit to having a direct involvement in the JFK assassination that has not yet been disclosed to the general public? While there's no concrete evidence to suggest such a revelation, the very nature of covert operations and intelligence work leaves room for speculation.

Given the deeply held secrets, the opaque nature of intelligence work, and the high stakes surrounding JFK's assassination, it's entirely possible that there is more to Prouty's story than meets the eye. Stone, who spent extensive time with Prouty while preparing for "JFK," may well hold knowledge that he has not publicly shared. Whether such information will ever come to light, however, remains to be seen. Until then, the speculation will continue, adding yet another layer of intrigue to the enduring mystery of JFK's untimely death.

Why do we need another thread on this topic?

15 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Sandy,

 

Yesterday you threatened to move one of Ben's posts to the political forum because you thought it was just a pretext for Ben to offer his "political musings".  I disagreed,  a couple of other folks did too, and that thread is still there.

 

Then today you moved the thread on Russiagate and the Durham report, without notice or discussion, to the political forum.  You haven't responded to any of the points I made yesterday, which also apply to your actions today.

 

A discussion of this is clearly necessary.

 

A separate "political" forum is clearly intended to include discussions of politics unrelated to the JFKA.  Problem is, the JFKA murder was a quintessential political murder, described as such by some writers on the topic.  It changed the result of the 1960 election and the whole trajectory of politics since, as I said yesterday.   

 

Bobby Jr is taking up where his father left off in '68. Not only about the JFKA itself, but the whole perpetual war mongering institution that has taken hold since the murder.  To see the magnitude of the change you need only reread JFK's '63 speech at AU laying out his clear vision for peace, and compare it to the political culture today.

 

By stoking fear and loathing of Russia, Russiagate has been a productive tool for the war mongers that populate both political parties and  that Kennedy wanted so much to blunt.  The Durham Report helps expose the connivance of political and security state leaders in furthering this atmosphere.  It will surely be of use to Jr as he battles those forces in his campaign.

 

Discussion of the JFKA cannot be confined to the murder itself, but must explore the aftermath, if it is to have any importance to life today.  The JFKA is not just a puzzle to be solved.  What is to be done with what we find out?  Nor can it be separated from politics, however you want to define that term.

 

Please reconsider what you have been doing.  This forum needs to be place that allows a full discussion of the JFKA and its ramifications.  

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. 

49 minutes ago, Joseph Backes said:

Michael,

You're in a cult.

Right-wingers always pull Dean Rusk out of their collective rear ends to buttress the lie that JFK was never going to withdraw from Vietnam.

Look at NSAM 263.  Look closely at it.  Look at the list of people its addressed to.

Who is the first person it's sent to? Ahead of the Sec of Defense and everybody else?

Why look, it's the little round headed kid, Dean Rusk.

And to his dying day Rusk always exclaimed, "No, JFK never told me nuthin about getting out of Vietnam."  

xxxx!  

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. 

On 5/17/2023 at 12:17 PM, W. Niederhut said:

Michael Griffith continues to "Swift Boat Vet" Fletcher Prouty with his John McAdams advertisement tropes.

 

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. 

17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Is There Really Nothing New in the JFK Files?

Only if you avert your eyes from CIA lies in the case of the murdered president

JEFFERSON MORLEY MAY 17

Posner has written some good books (on the Vatican and Big Pharma), but his JFK book is not among them, because it was written before the massive declassification JFK files in the 1990s, and because he tendentiously dismisses “conspiracy theorists” while ignoring the views of Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy, Fidel Castro, Charles De Gaulle and many others who concluded the president was killed by political enemies. His outdated book is prosecutorial, not historical.

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. 

14 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The diagram is wrong because it has the SBT exiting at JFKs jaw line when it actually exited 6 inches lower near the Adams apple. 6 inches lower would get to the entry point on the upper back as per the autopsy photo. Also JFKs head was tilted forward for the head shot which the diagram is unable to cater for. I guess proper 3d animations were too expensive to include.

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. 

18 hours ago, Adam Johnson said:

Whilst i believe Posner is and Bugliosi was a paid CIA asset, there are a couple of credible factors for the possibility of a shot around Z158- Z160.

The two major ones for me are the splice appearing in the Z film at that time and Rosemary Wiĺis ending her happy run/chase of the limo, stopping in her tracks and looking backwards and upwards towards the high floors of the TSBD or the Daltex building.

It also would be a shot that completely missed the Presidential limousine because we see no reaction within the vehicle. Where that shot ended up i cant say with any certainty.

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. 

On 5/13/2023 at 12:07 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Introduction:

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been shrouded in mystery and conspiracy theories for decades. Among the numerous individuals whose actions and motives have been scrutinized is Fletcher Prouty, who held a high-ranking position under the Secretary of Defense during JFK's administration. In this article, we will explore the possibility that Prouty may have played a role in the assassination plot by providing information to CIA operative Edward Lansdale.

Section 1: Prouty's Access to Classified Information

As a key figure in the Defense Department, Fletcher Prouty had access to highly sensitive military information. The type of information he had access to could have been useful for orchestrating an assassination plot. His privileged position raises questions about the extent of his involvement in the events surrounding JFK's death.

Section 2: The South Pole Assignment

During the time of JFK's assassination, Prouty was mysteriously assigned to the South Pole. This assignment has led some to speculate that it was a calculated move to distance himself from the event. In this section, we will delve into the potential reasons behind his absence from Washington, D.C.

Section 3: The Oswald Connection and Cover Story

In exploring the possibility that Prouty may have assisted Lansdale in identifying Lee Harvey Oswald as the perfect patsy for the assassination plot, we will look at Oswald's background and consider whether Prouty could have passed this information to Lansdale. In an intriguing twist, Prouty seems to express a sense of pride or accomplishment in how Oswald has become the main cover story for the assassination. We will explore this unusual perspective and consider whether it may be interpreted as an indication of Prouty's own involvement in the plot, and if so, how that might fit into the broader picture of the assassination conspiracy.

Section 4: Finding Retired Military Snipers

Another angle to consider is that Prouty may have helped Lansdale find retired military snipers for the assassination. If true, this would further implicate Prouty in the planning and execution of the assassination plot.

Section 5: Motivations for the Assassination

It is essential to consider why anyone would participate in the assassination of a president. One possible motivation is JFK's efforts to integrate schools that were previously reserved for white students. This move angered many individuals, potentially providing a motive for involvement in the assassination plot.

Section 6: Lansdale's Involvement

Edward Lansdale, a prominent figure in the CIA, has long been a subject of speculation in JFK assassination conspiracy theories. We will explore the connection between Lansdale and Prouty and consider how they might have collaborated in the plot.

Section 7: Prouty's Revelations in His Book

In his book, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy," Fletcher Prouty delves into the complex web of intrigue surrounding the assassination. He makes specific mention of Col. Lou Conein and General Edward Lansdale, both of whom have been implicated in various conspiracy theories related to the assassination.

Section 8: The Tramps and Dealey Plaza

Prouty discusses the mysterious figures known as "the tramps," who were photographed in Dealey Plaza shortly after JFK's assassination. He goes on to identify Lansdale and Conein in photographs taken at the scene, suggesting their presence as part of the plot. We will analyze these photographic claims and consider the implications of their alleged presence in Dealey Plaza.

Conclusion:

The JFK assassination continues to be an enigmatic and debated event in American history, with many unanswered questions and complex conspiracy theories. While concrete proof of Fletcher Prouty's involvement in the assassination remains elusive, the circumstantial evidence and intriguing connections between him, Oswald, and other key figures like Edward Lansdale warrant further investigation. By examining these relationships and considering the motivations behind the assassination, we can attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the intricate web of events surrounding JFK's tragic death. As the search for truth continues, it is crucial to remain open to new perspectives and evidence in the ongoing quest to unveil the full story behind one of America's darkest chapters.

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. 

16 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

What part of the Vietnam angle was wrong in Stone's film?

I don't know if you know this but I do.

John Newman sketched out those scenes for Oliver and Zach Sklar.

At that time, no one knew more about that material, probably not even Prouty.

If the ARRB was better on certain angles than others, it was good on Vietnam.  I mean even the NY Times and Philadelphia Inquirer admitted this when they printed stories about how the declassified record stated that Kennedy had a plan to get out of Vietnam when he died. (There was no apology issued to Stone.)

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).

7 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I see the satire but.  I think this is against forum rules, inferring another member is an infiltrator.

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? 

9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez... Question for the mods.

Ben Cole seems to be using RFK, Jr.'s 2024 Presidential candidacy as a pretext to post multiple anti-Biden MAGA spam threads on the JFKA board.

He's "flooding the zone," as we observed previously on the 56 Years thread.

Should Ben's multiple, redundant RFK, Jr. threads be moved to a separate RFK, Jr. board?

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. 

12 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Lifton pioneered the pre-autopsy surgery theory, did he not?  The Horne/Lifton Scenario, call it.

What kind of bullets leave shallow wounds in soft tissue?

There is no chain of possession for the improperly prepared extant autopsy photos.

The fragment left a 7mm X 4mm hole in the jacket then fell out of the wound and was not recovered.

From SS SA Glen Bennett’s 11/23/63 statement:

At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another fire-cracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder... </q>

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. 

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The Lifton Scenario cannot be ruled out.  But the question remains — what weapon leaves a shallow wound in soft tissue?

In this scenario a piece of glass entered the throat, ripped a couple inches of trachea, burst a bunch of blood vessels, hairline fractured the right transverse process, and left an airpocket overlaying the right T1/C7 TPs.

Check.

So what caused the hairline fracture and the air pocket at T1?

Dr. Mantik verified the authenticity of the neck x-ray.

Do bullets fall out of wounds?

Were these bullets of a caliber that would leave a shallow wound in soft tissue?

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. 

On 5/14/2023 at 3:41 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

So the Dallas Police just made up fake identities for the three tramps 29 years after the assassination and conspired with their very real families to lie about what happened in Dealey Plaza, then allowed those families, and the tramps themselves, to give television interviews? 

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. 

21 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

There seems to be a troubling tendency to read A single Pro conspiracy book and when it resonates with us, we batten down the hatches and race ahead at flank speed.

Folks like John Newman worked for decades to polish, refine and reach his conclusions. I was at Brigham Young University on 11/22/63. I came home for lunch, turned on the TV so it could warm up-remember those days? Made myself some sandwiches and walked into the living room to be told JFK was dead. There were no assassination books back them, so I read th 26 volumes of the Warren Commission-ruining my gpa and it was clear based on the actual evidence available that it was clearly a conspiracy.

Maybe we should just take a deep breath and return to a careful study of things and holdup on forming an intellectual firing squad. People want to ignore me and frankly I don't care but I would just wish folks would be bit more thoughtful and slower to jump to conclusions.

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.

On 5/12/2023 at 4:03 AM, David Von Pein said:

As per usual, James DiEugenio has everything backwards. Because Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" is actually a very very good book. It's easily one of the Top 5 books ever written concerning the events of 11/22/63.

Kudos go out to Mr. Posner for his book's 30th birthday here in 2023. It's a publication that has held up extremely well during these last thirty years. (The constant gripes of conspiracy theorists notwithstanding, of course.)

DVP Book Review -- "Case Closed"

More Interviews.....

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

On 5/13/2023 at 10:05 PM, Bob Ness said:

Are you joking, Joe? Calling my identity into question? Maybe you should do your own research on who I am. If you can't figure that out, I do suggest you buy a clue somewhere. I try to do you a favor at my own expense and time, post a warning that the info is not confirmed, and you come back and insult me?

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