Michael Griffith

Exactly. If there's a reasonable, credible risk, just black out the name. As for revealing how operations are conducted, the bad guys already have a very good idea about how we do operations. This is a silly excuse to withhold a document.

Obviously, Humes and Boswell were lying. We now know that they both knew for an absolute observed fact that the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point. They probed it extensively and could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity (the pleura). Finck even turned to Sibert and O'Neill and informed them that the back wound had no exit point. We also now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report said nothing about a bullet exiting the throat. Lone-gunman theorists can deny these inconvenient facts, but that won't make them go away. The SBT is a silly myth that was hastily cooked up after the WC could no longer deny that a bullet had missed and had landed near James Tague.

Let's start with some basic, well-known facts about FMJ bullets and basic physics: FMJ bullets do not deposit fragments via shearing on the outer table of a skull when they strike a skull, and if the rear-head-shot bullet was an FMJ bullet and somehow magically had metal fragments scraped off it as it entered the skull, the fragments would have been scraped off from the top of the bullet and would have been deposited above the wound, not below it, since the bullet would have been striking at a marked downward angle. Sturdivan's theory is absurd. A bullet fired from the sixth-floor sniper's nest would have struck the skull at a downward angle of 16 degrees. How would the bullet have magically made a sudden sharply upward turn in order to have any chance of causing the high fragment trail and of exiting above the right ear? Not one of the FMJ bullets in the WC's head-shot ballistics tests behaved in such an impossible manner. The HSCA FPP and the Clark Panel moved the rear head entry wound upward by nearly 4 inches because they knew there was no way a bullet striking at the EOP could have caused the high fragment trail. This is not to mention the well-known fact that FMJ missiles do not leave dozens of fragments in skulls. This is unheard behavior for an FMJ bullet (Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds). And then there's the scientifically established fact that the 6.5 mm object on the A-P skull x-ray is a ghosted image that was placed over a smaller genuine fragment (about 2.5 mm) on the rear outer table of the skull. This is why there is no object on the lateral x-rays that corresponds to the 6.5 mm object, a physical impossibility if these x-rays are pristine. I discuss this historic evidence in detail in the following article: The Suspicious 6.5 mm "Fragment" Finally, how in the world do lone-gunman theorists explain the additional rear-outer-table fragment identified by Dr. G. M. McDonnel for the HSCA? This fragment is to the left of the 6.5 mm object and is embedded in a different layer (the galea) than the 6.5 mm object! How could it have gotten there after having been magically sheared off an FMJ missile that struck at a downward angle? The idea that this fragment came from any FMJ bullet, much less from one fired from the sniper's nest, is utterly preposterous. This fragment, like the fragment inside the 6.5 mm object, is clearly a ricochet fragment from a bullet that struck near the limo and sprayed fragments toward the limo--this is the only plausible explanation.

I don't see anything racist about noting that the murder rate in a given black ghetto is high. I don't see how merely identifying the demographic composition of the ghetto constitutes racism. That is no more racist than to make the factual observation that the vast majority of the white-collar crime in America is committed by whites. Now, if one were to say that Ghetto A has a high crime rate because it's a black ghetto, that would be racist, just as saying that Company A has a high white-collar crime rate because it's predominantly white would be racist. Both remarks would imply that the persons' race was the reason they engage in bad conduct.

Trump sold weapons to the Saudis as a counterweight to Iran. The Saudis loathe and fear Iran's radical mullah regime.

The plotters needed a higher rear head entry wound--in the cowlick--because of the high fragment trail, because of the small bullet fragments high on the rear outer table of the skull (over most of which the 6.5 mm object was ghosted), and because the photographic evidence rules out a trajectory from the sniper's nest to the EOP entry site (JFK would have had to be leaning some 60 degrees forward when the bullet struck for the bullet to exit at a point above and forward of the right ear). WC apologists have had little to say about the fact that all three of the ARRB's forensic pathologists--Dr. Fitzpatrick, Dr. Ubelaker, Dr. Kirschner--said that there is no entry wound in the cowlick on the autopsy skull x-rays, that there is no radiographic evidence of a wound in that location.

After reading Shenon's article, a few questions come to mind: -- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to Oswald, an alleged unstable loner? How did that happen? -- How is it that names of agents and informants found their way into documents related to the assassination if the assassination was merely the act of one unstable loner? -- Why can't they redact the names (last name and/or first and last names) of those agents and informants? -- People who were agents or informants in the '60s and '70s would be at least in their late 70s now. An agent/informant who was 25 in 1962, for example, would be 85 today. An agent/informant who was 35 in 1965 would be 92 today. An agent/informant who was 30 in 1975 would be 77 today. Are we really to believe that these senior citizens would be at risk if their previous activities were revealed in a release of over 10,000 documents? Really? Would the Mafia send a team of researchers to the National Archives to comb through thousands of documents for the names of informants from the '60s and '70s? Really?

You must be kidding. So your answer to all the ARRB-released material on the back wound and on the evolution of the autopsy report is to quote the third and final draft of the autopsy report?! This is your answer, even though we now know that the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute, observable fact, verified by others at the autopsy, that the back wound had no exit point, and even though we now know that the first two drafts of the autopsy report did not claim the throat wound was caused by an exiting bullet? Your reply seems like a conscious effort to deny disturbing facts, not a serious effort to deal with those facts. This is what happens when a group of true believers in an erroneous theory are confronted with ironclad evidence that the foundation of their theory is not only false but impossible. Without the SBT, there can be no lone-gunman theory. The ARRB disclosures about the back wound alone destroy the SBT. It has been obvious to objective people for a very long time that the SBT is absurd. The rear holes in JFK's coat and shirt refute it (the bunched-clothing theory requires us to believe that the coat and the tailor-made shirt magically bunched in virtually millimeter for millimeter correspondence, both horizontally and vertically). The chest x-rays refute it. The Zapruder film refutes it (JFK and JBC were never aligned in a manner that would make the SBT possible). The 11/22/1963 Parkland Hospital treatment reports refute it. JFK's tie knot refutes it (no hole through the knot and no nick on the edge of the knot). The irregular slits below JFK's collar refute it (they had no fabric missing and no traces of metallic substance on their edges--the first FBI lab report on the slits theorized they were made by a fragment). The irregular H-shaped hole in the front of JBC's shirt refutes it (I'm still waiting for someone to explain how CEE 399 could have made such a hole--it was clearly made by exiting fragments, not an intact missile). The accounts of the surgeon and nurse who repaired JBC's wrist refute it. Until they were finally pressured into changing their minds, even the autopsy doctors rejected it. And on and on we could go.

Are you folks ever going to deal with the ARRB evidence that proves that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via extensive probing that the back wound had no exit point, that the first two drafts of the autopsy report did not claim the throat wound was an exit wound for the bullet that struck the back, and that the autopsy doctors were aware of the throat wound much earlier than they later claimed? We now know that the autopsy doctors did probe the back wound, with fingers and with a probe, that they removed the chest organs so they could see where the tract went, that they turned the body several ways and angles to facilitate the probing, that they could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity, and that they could see that the wound tract did not penetrate the chest cavity. That's when Finck turned to Sibert and O'Neill and said the back wound had no exit point. And now we know that others at the autopsy were aware of this as well, including one medical technician who witnessed the probing and who could see the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity. Lipsey and Ebersole both confirmed that the autopsy doctors learned of the throat wound during the autopsy, not the next day as they later claimed. Lipsey revealed that the autopsy doctors attributed the throat wound to a fragment from the head shot because they had already established that the back wound had no exit point. Rankin's comment about the throat wound during the 1/27/64 WC executive session confirms Lipsey's account: Rankin mentioned that the autopsy report said a head-shot fragment caused the throat wound. Rankin apparently was looking at the second draft of the autopsy report. We know from multiple sources that the first draft of the autopsy report did not attempt to explain the throat wound and said the back wound had no exit point. Only the third version of the autopsy report said the back-wound bullet exited the throat. When are lone-gunman theorists going to come grips with this historic information, which has been known for over a decade now?

How can you seriously post this stuff given that we now know, including from ARRB-released materials, that on the night of the autopsy, the autopsy doctors were absolutely, positively certain that the back wound had no exit point, and therefore they speculated that the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head wound? How? Are you aware of this evidence? If so, how do you explain it, if you say you still believe in the single-bullet theory? The old fallback line of "they were simply mistaken" won't work this time (it has rarely been credible in most other cases as well).

By the way, even Vincent Bugliosi admitted that not a single eyewitness actually described the sudden changing of direction that Myers assumes occurred: . . . it seems unlikely to me that Oswald would have changed directions (something, it should be added, that no witness saw). (Reclaiming History, endnote for 78, "why the cop stopped him") Bugliosi also admitted that if the assailant was Oswald, such a noticeable reversal of direction after allegedly spotting Tippit "would be inconsistent with Oswald's conduct that day" (Ibid.). Here's the core problem: ALL of the original police/FBI/SS reports on the Tippit shooting said the assailant was walking west, toward Tippit, when he stopped a foot or two in front of the front end of Tippit's car. But Myers must have "Oswald" suddenly spin around and walk away from Tippit before the encounter in order to explain why Tippit stopped him, since Oswald did not match the description of the suspect that was broadcast over the police radio (he was six years younger and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect). This is not to mention the fact that Tippit was far out of his assigned area, that there is no apparent innocent explanation for why Tippit was in Oswald's neighborhood, and that there is no apparent innocent explanation for Tippit's strange behavior in the 30 minutes before his death (speeding away from a gas station and frantically using a phone in a business). As for the latent palmprint, a few questions: 1. Lt. Day said he could still see the print on the barrel after he lifted it. In fact, he said it was so visible that he thought it was the FBI's "best bet" in terms of fingerprint evidence on the rifle (4 H 261). Yet, when the rifle was examined just hours later by the FBI's Sebastian Latona, not only did Latona find no prints on the barrel, partial or otherwise, but he found no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints. So, what happened to the print that Day said remained visible on the rifle after lifting? And why did Latona find no evidence that the barrel had even been processed for prints? 2. Lt. Day had the rifle from 1:25 till 11:45 p.m. on November 22 and took photos of the partial prints on the trigger guard. Why, then, did he not take a single photograph of the palmprint before or after he supposedly lifted it? It was, as Day admitted, standard procedure to photograph a print before lifting it. At the very least, Day could have photographed the print after he lifted it, since he said it was still visible.

What a bizarre "review." Myers does not deal with any of the important new evidence presented in JFK Revisited--not even one item. In fact, he does not address any of the evidence presented in the documentary. Instead, he harps on the fact that it does not address the Tippit shooting! What kind of a "review" is that? In his non-review review, Myers trots out some of the same dubious arguments about the Tippit shooting that he's been peddling for years, arguments that he knows have been answered many times over by serious researchers. For example, Myers trots out his fiction that "Oswald" supposedly spun around and reversed direction when he saw Tippit's car. Myers knows that the clear weight of the eyewitness evidence indicates that the man Tippit stopped had not spun around. But Myers won't admit this because then he'd have to explain why the lackluster Tippit would have stopped the man, supposedly Oswald, based on the vague description given over the police radio. The description broadcast by the police said the suspect was “about 30, 5’10”, 165 pounds.” Well, Oswald was 24, 5’9”, and weighed 131 pounds. Thus, Oswald was six years younger, 1 inch shorter, and 34 pounds lighter than the suspect described in the police broadcast. And Myers knows full well that his "more than a half dozen eyewitnesses" were of questionable value and that their "identifications" would have been strongly challenged under cross-examination. Myers still won't even admit the obvious fact that the police lineups were unfair and rigged to make Oswald stand out.

If the lateral x-rays in evidence were pristine, they would show the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report, unless one wants to argue that Humes and Boswell unbelievably mistook the high fragment trail for one that was at least 2 inches lower and in a different part of the skull.

Not only did McNamara oddly fail to mention the "secret debrief" in his 1995 memoir, but not one of his devoted "whiz kids," such as John McNaughton, seemed to know anything about it. If they did, it is odd that not one of them ever publicly mentioned it. McNaughton's diary turned up a few years ago, and it says nothing about the alleged debrief or about any intention to completely withdraw regardless of the consequences. McNaughton was McNamara's confidant and closest adviser. He practically worshipped the ground McNamara walked on, and McNamara trusted McNaughton implicitly and relied heavily on him. Yet, even in his diary, McNaughton said nothing about the debrief or about any unconditional withdrawal plans. And, it bears repeating that the "secret debrief" is powerfully contradicted by Bobby's April 1964 oral interview and by every public statement that JFK made on Vietnam in the last three months of his life, including statements he made or was going to make on the last three days of his life.

I see a number of problems with this scenario. For starters, there is no trail of any fragments leading from the EOP to the right orbit on the extant skull x-rays. Two, the cloud of fragments on the extant x-rays is clearly nowhere near the EOP, and this would have been plainly obvious on the lateral x-rays. Three, Finck was a forensic pathologist and had enough experience to distinguish between a fragment trail that started at the EOP and one that was well above and forward of it.

A brief summary would be helpful. It appears too obvious to deny that JFK's personal sexual morals left much to be desired. But, how does serial adultery compare with ordering innocent people murdered or with high treason or with trying to start a nuclear war for no valid reason?

Are you aware of what crime statistics show about murder rates in low-income areas when analyzed by racial demographics? I would agree that skin color in and of itself has nothing to do with it, since no one's skin color compels them to act in a certain way. This has much more to do with attitudes and mindsets among certain demographic groups. Crime statistics show that you are safer in some low-income communities than in others. That is just a fact, unless one wants to dismiss crime stats as rigged. I am not necessarily agreeing with the reply to which you were responding. In fact, I think the comment is too selective and too categorical. I am simply saying that crime stats show that some low-income areas are more dangerous than others and that analysis shows that racial demographics appear to play a role in the level of danger.

One historic piece of information that came to light through ARRB-released files and private interviews with autopsy witnesses is that on the night of the autopsy, the back wound was probed repeatedly, that part of the probing was done after internal organs had been removed to afford a better view of the probe, and that the autopsy doctors knew for an absolute fact that the back wound was a shallow wound with no exit point. One of the medical technicians could see the end of the probe pushing against the lining of the chest cavity and could see that the wound had no exit point.

The longer I study the JFK case, the more I am inclined to view Blakey as someone who did much to advance the case for conspiracy and to increase our knowledge of the case. For a long time, I thought Blakey should have been prosecuted for obstruction of justice. But, now that I know more about the conditions and constraints under which he worked, I see him in a more favorable light.

Oh, I can just imagine their responses: Custer misunderstood Ebersole. Custer invented the account because he was a publicity seeker. Custer is unreliable because he changed his story about the location of the large head wound. Ebersole could have simply done the taping of metal fragments and the x-raying of skull fragments by himself--he would not have needed to ask Custer to do these things for him. Why would the plotters have risked involving a low-level x-ray technician when Ebersole was a radiologist and could have done the job himself? Of course, the key to denying the problem here is to assume that Custer either lied or "misunderstood" Ebersole. Here are two of my still-unanswered questions for lone-gunman theorists about the autopsy skull x-rays: 1. Where is the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report on the extant skull x-rays? The autopsy doctors said in the report that the trail began slightly above the EOP and ran to a point just above the right eye orbit. Where is that trail on the extant skull x-rays? 2. Why does the autopsy report say nothing about the obvious high fragment trail seen on the extant skull x-rays? The high fragment trail is at least 2 full inches above the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report. Are you asking us to believe that the autopsy doctors were describing the high fragment trail when they said there was a fragment trail that began slightly above the EOP and ran to a spot just above the orbit of the right eye? Can anyone rationally fathom how even a first-year x-ray technician could make such a mind-boggling error?

"For an extended period of time"??? He only knew Oswald for four months. Another red flag about his story is that he says Oswald's Russian was not good. Leaving aside the question of how Gregory could have judged Oswald's Russian skills, other Russian speakers who knew Oswald said he spoke the language well.

I should have just avoided all adjectives and suggested you post your views in the thread that I suggested.

That's downright comical. That being said, I wish the moderators would move this thread to a different section of the forum. It really has nothing to do with the JFK case.

I don't dismiss Gregory's book because of his professional background. I dismiss it because Gregory clearly has done little serious research into the JFK case and into the flimsy case against Oswald. He appears to have only read a handful of pro-WC books and no books that present the other side. He recites the standard and discredited "evidence" against Oswald and seems unaware of the strong evidence of Oswald's innocence and of his intelligence connections.

I wonder if you are aware of just how many witnesses reported seeing Oswald with Ferrie and Banister, and with Ferrie and Shaw. I suggest you read Professor Joan Mellen's discussion on these associations in A Farewell to Justice, or the super-cautious Anthony Summers' discussion in Not in Your Lifetime. If this were a non-controversial case, the evidence for a significant Oswald-Ferrie-Banister link and for an Oswald-Shaw link would be considered compelling. No one would be nit-picking the witness accounts because they would be considered too numerous, credible, and mutually corroborating to be denied.