Michael Griffith

The stuff on the Rumble website is nutcase, wingnut, bizarre material. Did you know that the folks at Rumble also claim that the Moon landings were faked?

Now I don't feel so silly for not realizing that you were being sarcastic!

And then there's the crucial fact that one of the three shells found in the sniper's nest could not have been used to fire a bullet that day because it was markedly dented. Thus, whoever fired from that window could have only fired two shots. The Dented Shell: Hard Evidence of Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination

As mentioned, one reliable way to judge a book on the Vietnam War is whether it acknowledges the reign of terror that the North Vietnamese imposed on South Vietnam after the war. To provide some understanding of what happened, I will quote from left-of-center British historian Max Hastings book Vietnam: An Epic Tragedy (2018). Hastings’ book is one of the very few non-conservative books that deals honestly with the brutal reign that the Communists imposed. Hastings’ figure for the number of people sent to concentration camps (“reeducation camps”) is low (300K), but Hastings specifies that the figure is only for the first year after the war. New research on the subject done by Asian and Australian scholars puts the number of South Vietnamese sent to concentration camps at around one million (see, for example, Nathalie Huynh Chau Nguyen, Detention Camps in Asia, Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2022—Hastings’ book was published in 2018). One million was 5.6% of South Vietnam's population. If this were to happen to America, 5.6% would equal 18 million Americans sent to concentration camps. I will start with one quote about the period just before South Vietnam fell, and the remainder of the quotes deal with the aftermath. Keep in mind that these quotes tell only a small part of the ugly story:

The children of the people who assassinated Abraham Lincoln must have been behind JFK's assassination. Consider these 12 remarkable and disturbing parallels between Lincoln's assassination and JFK's assassination: 1. Both Lincoln and JFK had a man named Johnson as their vice president. Figure the odds of that. No way that's a coincidence. 2. Both Lincoln and JFK were wearing a formal coat and a dress shirt and a tie when they were shot. 3. Both Lincoln and JFK were sitting when they were shot. 4. Both Lincoln and JFK were killed with bullets. 5. JFK and the father of Lincoln's assassin were both born in the month of May. 6. Both JFK and Lincoln were shot in the head and died from their head wounds. 7. Both JFK and Lincoln supported civil rights. 8. Both JFK and Lincoln were hated by many Southerners for their civil rights views. 9. Both JFK and Lincoln were born north of the Mason-Dixon Line. 10. Both JFK and Lincoln wanted to try to establish an equitable peace with an enemy hated by many people all over the country. 11. Both JFK and Lincoln were strongly opposed by radicals/hardliners who felt the enemy did not deserve an equitable peace but should be severely punished. 12. Both JFK and Lincoln disliked British and French colonialism. Don't even try to mention the word "coincidence." Get real. If you refuse to admit that these parallels are disturbing, you are obviously a CIA-backed disinformation agent sent here to cause confusion and doubt. If you're not paranoid, you're just plain wrong.

I'm just not into the politics of envy and entitlement. And I don't view making money from speeches as "payoff money." Nor do I view speaking to Wall Street firms as evil. Based on the introduction and the first three chapters of Brandus's book, my guess is that the book will prove easy to refute. Certainly anyone who claims in 2023 that the shooting only took six seconds is probably not very well read on the case.

I'm not saying Humes made a false tract. He was just trying to probe a track that was incorrect down into the chest cavity. No LNer has ever said the track went down into the chest cavity. The probe came to a stop in the back muscles cos JFKs arm was down during the autopsy. So the track that was open on Elm street at z224 was now closed on the autopsy table. Humes didn't know where to go at this point and so began pushing downwards with the probe about an inch into JFKs back towards the chest cavity which of course was not the correct track. The witnesses who saw the probe trying to punch through the chest cavity were of course all correct, but that was simply not the correct place to be probing. I think this scenario is ludicrous. I find it hard to even bother typing to respond to it. The doctors positioned the body "every which way" during the probing and had a clear view of the interior side of the wounded area after the chest organs were removed. A first-year medical student would have known to move the right arm into various positions to facilitate the probing of a wound in the rear of the right shoulder. I find it impossible to take seriously the idea that while positioning the body "every which way," the doctors just left the right arm lying down beside the body, even though they were trying to identify a wound tract in the upper righthand side of the back. I can't comprehend the argument that the wound-probing witnesses were correct but that the probe was not probing in "the correct place." "The correct place"? If the back wound was at C7, as the SBT requires, there's no way the back muscles could have steered the wound tract that far downward into the chest cavity, regardless of how the right arm was positioned. Look at an anatomy textbook and see the difference between C7 and T3 and try to explain how even the worst-positioned right arm could have caused the back muscles to steer the wound tract that far downward. That just makes no sense. The Robert Croft photo proves conclusively that JFKs coat was bunched just 3 seconds before he was shot at z224. No, it does not. The Croft photo does not show a bunch that was large enough or in the right location to have caused such a huge shift in where the bullet holes would be made, even making the wild assumption that the shirt was bunched in nearly exact correspondence with the coat. Look at the photos of the coat and the shirt and see how far down those holes are. The modest bunch in the Croft photo does not even come close to being big enough or in the right location to account for the holes. Furthermore, Willis Slide 5, taken after the Croft photo, and taken a split-second before JFK was first hit, shows the coat virtually flat. How could JFK's tailor-made shirt have bunched up in nearly perfect correspondence with the coat, in every horizontal and virtual aspect and without forming an overlapping flap, when most of the shirt was pressed against the seat because his back was resting against the seat? Look how far down the hole is on the back of his shirt. There's no way his tailor-made shirt could have bunched so far upward while his back was pinning most of it against the seat. For a bunch to have caused the bullet to make holes so low on the shirt and coat, over 5 inches below the top of the collar, it would have had to take fabric from the areas of the holes and move that fabric upward by a least 3 inches, and without forming an overlapping flap (to avoid creating double holes). No photo or footage shows JFK's coat with any such bunch. I repeat the point that if a bullet had exited the throat, it could not have missed the tie knot, yet there was no bullet hole through the tie and no nick on either edge of the tie knot. Rather than use up numerous pages to cite more evidence on the back wound and the throat wound, I recommend viewing Doug Horne's well-documented presentation on the three drafts of the autopsy report in his video The JFK Medical Cover-Up. Using numerous sources, Horne shows that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. His discussion on the three drafts of the autopsy report starts at 1:18:45 and ends at 2:15:03. LINK Plus, I have additional material on the back wound and the throat wound in my article.

Rather than use up numerous pages to cite more evidence on the back wound and the throat wound, I recommend viewing Doug Horne's well-documented presentation on the three drafts of the autopsy report in his video The JFK Medical Cover-Up. Using numerous sources, Horne shows that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound. His discussion on the three drafts of the autopsy report starts at 1:18:45 and ends at 2:15:03. LINK Plus, I have additional material on the back wound and the throat wound in my article.

Yes, keep them coming, because we wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that this forum is a place for serious discussion on the JFK case. Does it bother you that he doesn't cite a single source for any of his claims about Lennon's shooting? Can't you see how flimsy some of his "parallels" are?

How is that this thread has turned into yet another Republican-bashing thread? Are you folks here to discuss the JFK case or to peddle your politics? Shall we talk about the millions that Barack Obama has made in speaking appearances since leaving office? Shall we mention that Obama has taken handsome fees to speak to Wall Street firms? For one set of three speeches to Wall Street firms, he made $1.2 million: Barack Obama to make $1.2m from three Wall Street speeches | The Independent | The Independent As of 2017, Obama was one of the ten highest paid public speakers on the planet: Barack Obama Is Now Among 10 Highest-Paid Public Speakers - TheStreet In 2019, Obama made $600K from a single speech: Obama paid $600,000 for a single speech - World Socialist Web Site (wsws.org) You know which former presidents charge the most for speaking appearances? Guess? Bill Clinton: $750K per speech Barack Obama: $400K per speech Guess what George W. Bush charges? $175K per speech. When he was healthy enough to speak, Jimmy Carter charged $50K per speech. Speaking Fees for Former Presidents - List and Details (thoughtco.com) I have no problem whatsoever with Clinton and Obama making big bucks from giving speeches. Good for them. I wish both of them well. Now, shall we get back to the subject of the thread and drop the partisan political posts?

Humm, okay. I wasn't aware that you believe in the SBT. I think your explanation ignores numerous items of evidence and makes several doubtful assumptions. Do you just not believe all the independent accounts about what people standing near the table saw during the probing? It sounds like you're saying that Humes jammed the probe so hard in the "wrong" direction that he created a false tract, an extremely unlikely mistake even for a first-year medical student, especially since Humes first probed the wound with his finger. Furthermore, Humes was not the only one doing the probing. Finck, a board-certified forensic pathologist, also probed the wound, first with a finger and then with a probe. Finck had performed actual autopsies and surely understood the role that muscles play when probing wound tracts. I find it hard to believe that it never occurred to any of the doctors to raise JFK's right arm upward and outward. That would have been a logical position to try, and, again, Karnei said the doctors positioned the body "every which way" to facilitate the probing. Moreover, with the chest organs removed, the probing would have been easier anyway because there would have nothing pressing against the interior side of the tissue where the wound was located, and it would have given the doctors a much better view of the interior side of the wounded area. By the way, removing the chest organs is standard procedure in an autopsy. Your explanation also requires us to discard the physical evidence of the holes in the back of JFK's coat and shirt. The only way to make those holes fit the SBT is to assume that JFK's coat and shirt bunched in nearly perfect millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence, and without overlapping folds (otherwise, double holes would have been made), an idea that I find utterly implausible, not to mention that it is refuted by the photographic evidence of JFK's coat during the motorcade. There's also the problem of the tie knot: There's no hole through the knot and no nick on either edge of the tie. Any bullet exiting the throat could not have missed the knot. What is your answer for Doug Horne's evidence that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being an exit point for the back wound? I will have to look into the deal with Kurtz. But, even we if assume he fabricated his interview with Dr. Canada, that still leaves several other witnesses who independently described seeing the probing and who saw that the back wound had no exit point.

They weren't looking for an exit wound at the back of the chest cavity. That just happened to be where the wound tract led. FBI Special Agent Francis O'Neill said the following about this in his HSCA interview, which was sealed until the ARRB released it: There was not the slightest doubt when we left there that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas was the bullet which worked its way out through external cardiac massage. And the doctor said, since the body had not been turned over in Dallas, “External cardiac massage was conducted on the president, and the bullet worked its way out." There was not the slightest doubt, not a scintilla of doubt whatsoever that this is what occurred. In fact, during the latter part of it and when the examination was completed, the doctor says, "Well, that explains it.” Because Jim [Sibert] had gone out, called the laboratory, learned about the bullet, came back in. Because I was closer to the President’s body than I am to you, and you’re only about a foot and a half away or two feet away. And viewing them with the surgical probe and with their fingers, there was absolutely no point of exit and they couldn’t go any further. And that presented a problem, one heck of a problem. And that’s why Jim [Sibert] went out and called. . . . O'Neill stated in his 11/8/78 HSCA affidavit that "Humes and Boswell couldn't locate an outlet for the bullet that entered the back." That's when Sibert left to call the FBI lab to see if "any extra bullets existed." He added, "I know for a fact that when the autopsy was complete, there was no doubt in anyone's mind in attendance at the autopsy that the bullet found on the stretcher in Dallas came out of JFK's body," i.e., out of the back wound (p. 000573). O’Neill also offered this gem of an observation: "I do not see how the bullet that entered below the shoulder could have come out the front of the throat" (p. 000575). In his 7/16/96 ARRB interview, autopsy photographer John Stringer said that the back wound was probed and that the probe did not come out of the neck: Q: Was the probe put into the neck, or did it come of the neck? A: It was put into the back part. Q: The back of the body. And then did the probe come out the neck? A: No. Another important witness on the back wound is Dr. Robert Canada. Dr. Canada was the commanding officer of the treatment hospital at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963, and he witnessed the autopsy. In a 1968 interview with Dr. Michael Kurtz, Canada said that the back wound was at around T3, that the bullet “did not exit,” and that its wound tract ended in the chest near the stomach ((Kurtz, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman versus Conspiracy, University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 91; see also https://www.fff.org/explore-freedom/article/altered-history-exposing-deciet-and-deception-in-the-jfk-assassination-medical-evidence-part-1/, segment on Dr. Canada begins at 1:08:20). Dr. Canada asked Dr. Kurtz not to reveal his account until 25 years after he died, so Kurtz did not write about it until 2006. We have to keep in mind that the back wound was not at C6 or C7 but at T3, as established by the holes in JFK's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, and by the back-wound dot on the autopsy face sheet, among other sources. Again, the doctors found the end of the wound tract, and people standing near the table could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. The wound was shallow and had no exit point. That's why the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about the throat wound being the exit point for the back wound, as Doug Horne has established.

I don't see what this Soviet version of history has to do with Oliver Stone's shameful praise of Putin, one of the most murderous dictators on the planet. Gorbachev's deal would have required us to abandon our missile-defense research. Now that virtually everyone recognizes the importance of missile defense, we should thank God that Reagan did not cave to this unreasonable demand.

You seem to be forgetting that Karnei said the doctors positioned JFK's body "every which way" during the probing. They also removed the chest organs to facilitate the probing. The key point is that the probe went as far as it could go. The doctors found the end of the wound tract. Jenkins and others near the table could see the end of the probe pushing up against the lining of the chest cavity.

I just added an excerpt from my article to the OP.

For those who might be interested, I have revised and expanded my article "Some Comments on John McAdams' Kennedy Assassination Home Page." LINK My article deals with McAdams' claims regarding Jack Ruby's Mafia contacts, Ruby's shooting of Oswald, Ruby's meetings with criminal figures, Ruby's polygraph, Ruby's calls to Mafia contacts in the weeks before the assassination, how Ruby entered the DPD basement, David Ferrie, the single-bullet theory, JFK's back wound, JFK's throat wound, JFK's head wounds, and Lee Harvey Oswald. Here's an excerpt: But researchers have known for years that this description is sheer speculation. We know from released documents about the autopsy that on the night of the autopsy the pathologists were absolutely positive the back wound did not have an exit point. We also know that they probed the wound repeatedly, that they removed the chest organs and probed the wound again and still saw no exit point, and that people standing near the autopsy table could see the end of the surgical probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. Dr. Robert Karnei was a resident surgeon at Bethesda Naval Hospital in 1963 and witnessed the autopsy. In a 1991 recorded interview, Karnei said the autopsy doctors positioned the body in multiple ways to facilitate the probing of the back wound, and that “the men” who saw the probing commented that they could see the end of the finger and then the end of the probe “from inside the empty chest.” He added that the pathologists worked “all night long with the probes” to find the bullet’s path through the body: They did have the body--trying to sit it up and trying to get that probe to go. . . . Q: Why didn't they turn the body over? A: Well, they did. They tried every which way to go ahead, and try to move it around. . . . Q: But this was after the Y incision? A: Yes. The men described being able to see the end of the finger and the probe from inside the empty chest. They were working all night long with probes trying to make out where that bullet was going on the back there. (Transcript of interview with Robert Karnei, p. 10) In his 3/10/97 ARRB interview, Karnei said that by around midnight the autopsy doctors "had not found a bullet track through the body, nor had they found an exit wound for the entry in the shoulder" (p. 001476). James Jenkins, a medical technician who assisted Dr. Boswell during the autopsy, stated in his 8/29/1977 HSCA interview that Dr. James Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, found that the bullet tract had not "penetrated into the chest" and that Humes had been able to "reach the end of the wound." Jenkins specified that the back wound "was very shallow" and that "it didn't enter the peritoneal cavity [the chest cavity]. He noted that there was quite a “controversy” because the doctors “couldn’t prove the bullet came into the chest cavity” even though they probed the back wound “extensively” (pp. 5, 7, 10-11, 13). In a 1979 filmed interview, Jenkins said the following: Commander Humes put his finger in it, and, you know, said that ... he could probe the bottom of it with his finger. . . . I remember looking inside the chest cavity and I could see the probe . . . through the pleura. You could actually see where it was making an indentation. . . . It was pushing the skin up. . . . There was no entry into the chest cavity. (Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime: The Definitive Book on the JFK Assassination, New York: Open Road Media, 2013, p. 52)

I think attacking Post Hill Press is not a good strategy. They publish many good books that have nothing to do with politics or the JFK case. Their authors include many professors and other genuine scholars, some of whom are not conservatives. Some of their books on history, economics, and military history are excellent. Anchor Books published Posner's Case Closed, yet Anchor has also published some of the finest scholarly works on other historical subjects that you will find anywhere. We really need to stop judging authors solely by their politics. Many conservatives don't buy the lone-gunman theory, and there are plenty of liberals who are ardent WC apologists. The JFK case is not a right vs. left issue, and those who insist on making it that are making a big mistake and are alienating huge numbers of readers whom we might otherwise be able to reach.

The next time I recommend Oliver Stone's JFK Revisited to someone, I dearly hope they haven't heard about this embarrassing statement. If they have heard about it and they ask me about it, the best I will be able to do is say that the experts who appear in the documentary have nothing to do with Stone's comment. The problem is that when you make such a bizarre statement, people naturally tend to discount everything else you have to say. You can't blame them for reasoning that if your education and judgment are so bad that you would make such a statement and stand by it, they should not trust anything else you have to say. Until last year, when I joined this forum, I had no idea that the JFKA research community was in such sorry shape. Until last year, I had no idea that there were so many researchers with fringe, extremist views. I will continue to recommend JFK Revisited, but Stone has handed our critics damaging ammo on a silver platter by making that comment.

Yes, exactly. And that's why soldiers in those situations so often missed their targets even at close range. They were too scared, tense, and panicky to take careful aim and to avoid jerking the trigger and/or the entire rifle. When you're frightened, excited, and panicky, you act on reflex and impulse. The amygdala part of the brain takes over. It's a type of "fight or flight" response, not at all conducive to taking careful aim, controlling your breathing, and evenly squeezing the trigger. The WC's rifle test is crucial because it was the only rifle test where the alleged murder weapon itself was used, and because the riflemen were experienced world-class marksmen.

After reading the introduction and the first three chapters of the book (i.e., the free Kindle preview of the book), I think it is obvious that Brandus is a relative newcomer to the case. The first thing that jumped out at me was his curious statement in Chapter One that the shooting took six seconds ("the assassination of JFK took six seconds"). The only way to assume the shooting only took six seconds is to assume the supposed lone gunman did not start firing until Z210. However, even Posner acknowledges that a shot was fired at around Z160, which means the alleged lone gunman fired his supposed three shots in right around 8.3 seconds. Furthermore, if the alleged lone gunman did not fire until Z210, he would have had to score two hits in three shots in 5.6 seconds, an astonishing feat that the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test did not even come close to duplicating, even though they fired from only 30 feet up, fired at stationary targets, and were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot (whereas Oswald would have been firing from 60 feet up at a moving target, and would not have had the luxury of taking all the time he wanted for his first shot). Moreover, if the alleged lone gunman fired one shot between Z158 and Z166 (JFK passed beneath the oak tree from Z166-209), this means our supposed lone marksman badly missed with his first, easiest, and closest shot but then went two for two in 5.6 seconds. Yet, the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test failed to duplicate this scenario as well--nearly all of their first shots were hits, but all of their second and third shots missed the aiming-point area. Thus, right off the bat, Brandus stumbles badly on a basic aspect of the assassination. I do plan on buying Brandus's book, but not for a while. I'm working on two other writing projects and don't have time to read his book right now.

This is your answer to the disclosure of Prouty's supportive letter to the IHR's JHR??? Are you kidding me??? We're talking about much more than "guilt by association." This is not "guilt by association" anyway. You folks don't appear to even know what that term means. Here's the standard definition: A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything. Here's another definition--notice they convey the exact same meaning: A guilt by association fallacy occurs when someone connects an opponent to a demonized group of people or to a bad person in order to discredit his or her argument. The idea is that the person is “guilty” by simply being similar to this “bad” group and, therefore, should not be listened to about anything. So you see that we are talking about much more than "guilt by association" when it comes to Prouty and anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying organizations. I am not "associating" Prouty with those groups because he expressed similar ideas. I am pointing out that he participated in their events, recommended their publications, praised their leaders, had a book published by one of them, and appeared on one of their radio shows numerous times, etc., etc. The refusal of the Prouty apologists here to face reality proves you have no credibility and no objectivity, that you are rabid and fringe. Every single one of you. You are doing great damage to the case for conspiracy in the JFK assassination. I am done trying to reason with you. If Prouty's letter to the IHR's JHR is not enough to bring you to your senses, then you are beyond persuasion and beyond reason. This will be my last reply in this thread.

And now for the hammer blow on the nutty anti-Semite (and Holocaust denier) L. Fletcher Prouty. Come to find out that in 1992 Prouty wrote a supportive, encouraging letter to the IHR's Holocaust-denying journal, The Journal of Historical Review (JHR). In his letter to the editor, Prouty expressed the wish that the editor was well and that the Institute (i.e., the IHR) was "busy," and he even said that the Institute's "primary goals" were never "more important" than they were at that time. Of course, one of the IHR's primary goals, if not its main goal, was to deny the Holocaust. Here's Prouty's letter: I trust that things are going well with you and that the Institute is as busy as ever. I never knew a time when its primary goals were more important than right now. L. Fletcher Prouty [author of The Secret Team], Alexandria, Va. (Letters to the Editor (vho.org)) The letter appeared in the Winter 1992 edition of the JHR (vol. 12, no. 4, p. 501). The editor inserted the bracketed comment "author of The Secret Team" in Prouty's signature block. Don't be confused by the yellow edition-selection dropdown bar on the page (which reads 2002 by default). You can confirm the edition and page number by going to the JHR's table of contents page: The Journal of Historical Review, Table of contents, vol. 12 (vho.org) So, there can be no more denials of Prouty's anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. Prouty obviously was a regular reader of the JHR. Every single issue of the JHR from 1980 to 2002 contained at least one article that denied the Holocaust. Many issues not only carried Holocaust-denial articles but also disgraceful attacks on Jews. You can confirm this fact by reading the back issues of the JHR from 1980 to 2002: The Journal of Historical Review, Table of Contents (vho.org) Fletcher Prouty wasn't just a nutcase and fraud who made bizarre claims, he was also an anti-Semite and a Holocaust denier who spoke at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference, who spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention, who recommended the anti-Semitic rag The Spotlight, who clearly implied that Jews should not be trusted with running air-combat targeting computers, who said he was "no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial, who had one of his books republished by the IHR, who publicly praised Carto and Marcellus, and who appeared 10 times in four years on Liberty Lobby's routinely anti-Semitic and Holocaust-denying radio program. No one who wishes to be seen as credible and respectable should ever again cite or quote Prouty.

This wingnut myth was debunked years ago. Sheesh, who are you people? What news channels do you watch? What newspapers do you read? Antisemitic Conspiracies About 9/11 Endure 20 Years Later | ADL Conspiracy Theories Continue to Blame Jews and Israel Five Years After 9/11 (jewishjournal.com) Disinfo: Israel knew 9/11 was coming (euvsdisinfo.eu) Thousands of Israelis Were Absent from the WTC on 9/11? | Snopes.com The long strange history of the 9/11 "celebrations" meme (slate.com)

Let's get real and start being honest. Sheesh, the IHR would not have listed Prouty as a speaker at their upcoming tenth annual conference in 1990 unless they had already arranged and confirmed this with Prouty. They wanted an "all-star" lineup for the conference, since it was going to be their tenth annual gathering. Also, the IHR republished Prouty's nutty book The Secret Team one month before the conference. So it makes perfect sense that they invited Prouty to speak and that he accepted. And I don't think The Spotlight was lying when it reported that Prouty and Bo Gritz were both prepared to appear as "character witnesses" for Willis Carto in the Mermelstein lawsuits against Carto and Liberty Lobby. Recall that during the 1990 Liberty Lobby convention, Prouty not only spoke (and blamed Israel for high oil prices and decried "usury") but hosted a panel discussion with Gritz after he spoke. It was at the 1990 convention that Prouty recommended that people read The Spotlight, as The Spotlight proudly reported, quoting Prouty: “If anybody really wants to know what’s going on in the world today, he should be reading Spotlight" and “one of the first enemies we have in this country is usury” (Spotlight, 10-8-90, page 14). Did you catch the attack on "usury"? Prouty's anti-Semitic audience surely knew what he was talking about. Neo-N-azis and other anti-Semites have long accused Jews of usury. But I'm sure that you Prouty apologists will say, "Oh, that was a just another coincidence! He wasn't alluding to Jews!" Nah, of course not.

Oh my goodness! LOL! You certainly fooled me! I thought you were serious! I have edited my reply to reflect my new understanding of your post.