Michael Griffith
-
Posts
1,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Griffith
-
-
2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Of course I was being sarcastic DJ.
Looks like you missed this as MG did earlier.
Now I don't feel so silly for not realizing that you were being sarcastic!
-
On 5/4/2023 at 11:41 AM, Joe Bauer said:
Between the 2nd back shot and 3rd head shot, Oswald's scope aiming would have been in a constant micro-second state of adjustment.
With JFK's head as a target, between the second and third shot JFK's head was constantly moving.
Within a second or two right after JFK is hit in the back and his fists pull up to his throat and he turns his head toward Jackie in agonal distress, Jackie grabs him and pulls him to her. The distance of JFK's upper body movement from his uptight sitting position to leaning down next to Jackie is 2 feet.
All during JFK's 2nd to 3rd shot shifting left movement his limo is moving farther away forward and on a downward grade to boot.
That's 3 different movement dynamics of Oswald's JFK head target.
Oswald had to adjust for all three? And in how much time?
When the top marksmen were trying to duplicate Oswald's JFK head shot...was their target moving left two feet as JFK's upper body was in the 2 seconds right before their shot, as well as the target holder moving away from them at a downward angle at the very same time?
And remember, that right after the 2nd JFK back shot Oswald would have to eject that spent cartridge and reload another one which would have taken what...another second or two?
Which meant that Oswald would have had even less time to resight his scope aim.
All with JFK's upper body moving 3 different ways the entire time?
Like I said earler, JFK's near bullseye head shot was a target hitting achievement for the ages.
One top marksmen had a difficult time replicating even without the full JFK head movement Oswald had to adjust for.
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:
QuoteBritish journalist Richard West, who knew Indochina intimately and had once been passionately anti-American, now wrote remorsefully from Saigon,
“It is not true to portray South Vietnam as a fascist regime overthrown by a revolutionary movement. Even at this eleventh hour opposition movements have some right of protest, while Saigon’s press is less timid than London’s in its exposure of rascals in office. . . . It is distasteful, here in Saigon, to read the gloating tone of some foreign newspapers over the fate of anti-communists here.” (p. 711).
At five p.m. on April 30, the people of North Vietnam heard echoing through a myriad of street loudspeakers the familiar theme tune “Kill the Fascists,” which preceded news from the Voice of Vietnam. Then an announcer said, “Fellow countrymen, you are invited to listen to a special victory proclamation”. . . .
Bao Ninh describes in his autobiographical novel The Sorrow of War a return to Hanoi after the 1975 campaign.
“Loudspeakers blared, blasting the ears of the wounded, sick, blind, white-eyed, gray-lipped malarial soldiers. Into their ears poured an endless stream of the most ironic messages, urging them to ignore the spirit of reconciliation, to dismiss the warmth and humanity in the ruins of the defeated, sybaritic society of the South. And especially to guard against the idea of its people having fought valiantly or been in any way deserving of respect.” Ninh and most of his comrades despised “this barrage of nonsense.” (pp. 724, 726)
Former secret cadre and PRG justice minister Truong Nhu Tang was among those embittered, indeed alienated, by the manner in which the “liberation” of South Vietnam was implemented. “The Hanoi Communist Party concentrated power in the hands of corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats and brutal security organizations. They fought among themselves to sequester the best houses, the richest plantations and black market luxuries.” (p. 727)
Yet twenty-year-old history student Kim Thanh’s family, who lived near Tan Son Nhut, remained for days in hiding in the cellar of her great-uncle’s house. The old man, like her own parents, had migrated from the North in 1954. “They knew the communists, and what they would do.” When the family finally emerged, they saw the first manifestations of Northern victory: bodies lying in the street, victims of spontaneous executions. (p. 729)
As the new rulers tightened their grip, South Vietnam’s people progressively learned the meaning of “communism,” hitherto a mere weapon word, brandished or parried by the rival combatants.
Le Duc Tho had assured foreigners during the Paris negotiations, “We have no wish to impose communism on the South.” Yet now, in the words of Michael Howard, “A gray totalitarian pall” descended upon the country. A Hanoi doctor inspected the equipment of Saigon’s main hospital and said, “You have too much. We cure many diseases without all these things.” Truckloads of medical equipment were removed and shipped North, along with much else. Cadres evicted wholesale from Cong Hoa Military Hospital a thousand ARVN wounded. . . .
In the year following “liberation,” some three hundred thousand South Vietnamese were arrested. All those with the slightest association with the fallen government were tainted for life. The cashier at Saigon’s Majestic Hotel escaped imprisonment, but was denied further employment and repeatedly interrogated because he had accepted payment for so many bills from Americans.
Approximately two-thirds of detainees, including all ex-officers, were dispatched to reeducation camps, where they remained for between three and seventeen years. A record of opposition to the Thieu regime provided no immunity: among those confined was Buddhist monk Tri Quang, who had created such embarrassments for Saigon’s generals.
A film scripted by the famous poet Nha Ca had been banned by the former rulers as an alleged incitement to pacifism. Back in 1968, however, she had been present in Hue during the communist massacres, and she published an emotional elegy, Mourning Headband for Hue. For this she was now dispatched to a camp, and a copy of her Hue poem was exhibited in Hanoi’s Museum of War Crimes as a specimen of “puppet lies.”
No fixed term was set for prisoners’ incarceration, determined by Party whim. Le Minh Dao, who commanded the South’s 18th Division at Xuan Loc, remained behind barbed wire until 1991, much longer than Stalin held captured National Socialist generals after World War II. (pp. 730-732)
Former lieutenant Si found himself working on the Cambodian border, in conditions little superior to those prevailing in World War II Japanese prison camps. He and his comrades spent countless hours composing confessions of supposed crimes. They were told that they would be released only when judged fit to play their parts in the New Society. Uncertainty about when this might be drove some men to madness. “An army doctor one day slashed his wrists. Then next morning we found his name on a list for release.” Because the only medicine available was aspirin, almost any disease sufficed to kill. Si’s own father, a former Saigon police officer aged fifty-nine, perished in the first months of his own incarceration, probably from chronic liver trouble, though the family was never informed. One of Si’s fellow prisoners died of asthma. Another, unaccustomed to agricultural tasks, was fatally injured by a jagged bamboo that sprang back and slashed him as he strove ineffectually to fell it. Dysentery was endemic. Starvation was employed as a psychological weapon. (p. 732)
Some of those dispatched to the camps were relatively elderly city dwellers, ill adapted to a primitive life with minimal sanitation and chronic malaria. Nobody knows how many prisoners died, but a death rate of 5 percent—a conservative estimate—would indicate at least ten thousand.
After release, they remained without civil rights; most were dispatched to “New Economic Zones,” raw jungle areas where they were expected to create communities amid privations little less stringent than those of the camps. Some eventually received exit visas in return for surrendering everything they owned. (p. 733)
Among these was retired Southern colonel Ly Van Quang’s wife, who had three sons serving in the military and another already already dead in Lam Son 719. Her brother was Thien Le, a general in the North Vietnamese Army. She was rashly confident that this connection would preserve the family from persecution. Instead her three sons, Thien Le’s nephews, endured years in the camps. (p. 734)
Nguyen Cong Hoan, an antiwar South Vietnamese who served two terms in the post-1975 National Assembly before fleeing in a refugee boat, said six years later, “I am very regretful that I did not understand the communists before. The communists always speak in lofty terms that appeal to the better part of people. Then they are used for a tragic end. I believed them; I was wrong.” (p. 734)
By 1980 resource-rich Vietnam had become one of the poorest nations on earth. Through the decade that followed, its people suffered terribly, yet their elderly leaders remained unwilling to abandon collectivism or to engage with the noncommunist non-communist world, for fear of polluting Vietnam’s ideological purity. . . .
In 1988 famine swept large parts of the north, imposing terrible suffering on more than nine million people; an unknown number died. Yet still ideologues in Hanoi, together with some military men and especially members of the powerful intelligence apparatus, found it hard to reconcile themselves to compromises with economic rationality.
Le Duan died in 1986, but the successors to Tho and himself have shown no inclination either to indulge personal freedom or to sacrifice a jot of the power of the Party. Marxist-Leninist theory continues to be taught in every secondary school. Hanoi’s gerontocratic leadership has acknowledged merely the necessity to allow individuals and private enterprises to make money, which some have done with notable success. . . . (p. 737)
-
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.
-
1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:
Okay MG.
Just want to mention though that all of em...Republican and Democrats grab all that unethical payoff money as much as they can.
They all cash in.
I'm calling them "all" out on this scam.
Carter only got $50,000 a talk?
Guess he didn't do very many favors for the big boys downtown when he was Prez.
Yeah, the Obamas live large. He golfs here at Pebble Beach and at one of the top five most exclusive clubs in the world here also...Cypress Point.
Finest hotel stays. Finest restaurants.
Clinton does the same thing.
Now, back to the JFKA research debate!
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.
-
10 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
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.
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.
Plus, I have additional material on the back wound and the throat wound in my article.
-
5 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
Thank you, David. Keep these posts coming.
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?
-
8 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
As I recall Bush 41 left office and proceeded to make appearance after appearance for Wall Street firms--at a million bucks an appearance. it seemed obvious it was a payoff for the Wall Street friendly policies he'd kept in place throughout his term.
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?
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
I dont doubt any of this except maybe the Michael Kurtz interview as there is some doubt as to his credibility as a JFK assassination researcher. See discussion at this thread:
As per the SBT, the bullet passed in between the strap muscles of the back. So once Humes probed the back wound and got to the strap muscles, the narrow bullet track would have widened with the gap of the strap muscles causing Humes to lose the track at this point. What appears to have happened is that at this point having lost the track of the wound at the point of the strap muscles where the space widened (I think the space widened vertically up and down though i'm not well versed on the exact positioning of the strap muscles) Humes began to go downwards to where he thought a bullet being fired from a sixth floor window would descend which would be into the chest cavity. This problem was acerbated by the fact that because during the autopsy JFKs arm was most likely down by the side of his body (thus the muscle layout in his back was significantly different than when he had been shot at Z224 with his arm raised) thus cutting off the original track which would have continued on forward and out the throat.
The natural direction Humes took when he came to the vertical gap in the strap muscles (and with the original track wound cut off because of the different positioning of JFKs arm during the autopsy than when he had been shot at Z224) would be to go downwards as it would not make sense to go laterally forward as such a trajectory would not seem to make sense for an assassin firing from six floors up.
I think this is a very reasonable explanation for what quite possibly happened during the autopsy.
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.
-
1 hour ago, Gerry Down said:
When they started off the autopsy they had this idea in their head that the assassin had fired downwards from 6 floors up and this caused them to think that the bullet entry wound on the back should descend downwards into the body at something resembling a 45 degree angle. Therefore they were looking for the wrong track trajectory to begin with. The real trajectory, as per the SBT, is a more level track through the neck. You should not have to remove the chest organs in order to demonstrate the trajectory as per the SBT because that trajectory goes nowhere near the chest organs. So if they were looking for an exit wound at the back of the chest cavity its no wonder they didn't find it because there would be no exit wound down that low.
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.
-
4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
I agree.
The guy did everything he could to create a detente.
The deal he offered Reagan in Iceland was mind boggling.
It would have altered history.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Gerry Down said:
They should have raised JFKs right arm up and outwards on the autopsy table rather than having it hanging down by his body. That way the back and shoulder muscles would line up correctly allowing the probe to go through.
JFKs right arm was up and outwards at z224 when he was shot.
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."
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)
-
34 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
Post Hill Press.
They also published Kayleigh McEnany's just released memoir.
Sounds like a huge book advance front company for right wing / Trumpophant type players.
Are they the ones who rewarded Kellyann Conway too?
Heck, I might as well submit to them a JFKA tome pasting together God knows what from who knows who and where ( years of National Enquirer articles? ) and with a mouth agape gobsmacked title like " 11,22,1963 THE SHOCKING TRUTH ...TOP SECRET GOVERNMENT REMOTE VIEWER SEES JFK'S REAL KILLER!" and see what happens.
I could sure use the dough.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:
Still, I recall many accounts shared where the soldiers in these direct fire battles said they just shot their weapons at anything that moved. In a desperate self defense way. That the random barrage itself was the best thing they could think of to keep the enemy at bay.
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.
-
9 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
Hi, Jim (and everyone):
Last week, I received an anonymous email (obvious fake account and email address) from a very rude person stating that author Paul Brandus has "destroyed all conspiracy theorists-including YOU" [meaning, me]. I purchased the book and all I will say is: This calls for a DiEugenio Kennedys & King book review! I have done my part (feel free to use it/ incorporate into your review):
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.
-
8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
I am just going to highlight the obvious here. You are calling Colonel Fletcher Prouty an antI-semite, because an organisation questioning the holocaust offered him a platform for his work. You are using guilt by association. You suggest that nobody should be quoting Prouty because of this view you have. IThis 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.
-
2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
You’ve also got the Israeli’s filming 9/11 and dancing on a roof top, later arrested and deported from the USA.
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.
-
44 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
MG...you missed my take.
I was being absurd humor sarcastic in citing Oswald's rifle shooting practice.
Marina stating Lee shot at leaves in a public park?
Ridiculous. The cops would have been called in a minute seeing someone doing such.
Lee going to "Lopfield" ( Love Field) to shoot his rifle?
Same thing.
One shot at Walker...that missed!
Play aiming and shooting his rifle at home like some kid with a BB gun?
I cite the disparities of Oswald's "alleged" shooting feat at JFK that defied the abilities of the top marksmen in the country.
I mention the added elements of target movement, and life and death pressure stress that Oswald was most assuredly experiencing while shooting, especially during the last near bullseye shot into JFK's 8 inch wide skull.
My post point was the absurdity of Oswald being the lone shooter at JFK and how he could perform shooting skills beyond those of master marksmen shooting at targets with less movement and under non-life and death fearing conditions.
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.
Chomsky's lies about JFK and the CIA
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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?