Michael Griffith

I think this is sick, revolting radical trash that grossly distorts JFK's position on Israel, the Palestinians' so-called "right of return," and the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is especially sickening that you would post this garbage so soon after Hamas's barbaric attack on Israel in which Hamas tortured and murdered women and children, routinely used civilians as human shields, and used hospitals and medical clinics as shields. Just a little history refresher here: The Palestinians were offered their own homeland in the 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine. After the terrible slaughter of the Jews in the Holocaust, most of the world recognized that the Jews needed a nation of their own, and so the UN voted to create a small Jewish nation in Palestine. The partition plan gave the majority of the best land to the Palestinians. But Palestinian leaders rejected the UN plan because they were so certain that their Arab buddies could easily maul the Jews and expel them once and for all. I might add that in several areas, Palestinian leaders urged Palestinians to temporarily vacate their homes so as to make it easier for the Arab armies to sweep in and maul the Jews. Palestinian leaders expressly promised that those vacating their homes would soon be able to return, and that there would be plenty of Jewish property to divide among them after the Jews were driven out. But, lo and behold, the Jews defeated the invading Arab armies and the Palestinian forces. The Palestinians would have never become refugees in such mass numbers if their leaders had not treacherously rejected the UN partition plan and invited Arab armies to attack the Jews.

Sandy, I think this is going too far. The skull x-rays are definitely of JFK, but they've been altered. The skull may well have been intact at the location of the 6.5 mm object (and the small genuine fragment inside it). Keep in mind that this is over 3 inches above the EOP. The right-rear exit wound may well not have extended that high above the EOP. Another factor to keep in mind is the distinct possibility that the rear-head bullet struck first and that the frontal shot hit second and took out part of the right-rear area of the skull, which would explain why Boswell specified that part of the EOP entry site was contained in a late-arriving skull fragment. I agree that the autopsy brain photos cannot be of JFK's brain, that they must be of someone else's brain, but I think the evidence indisputably shows that the skull x-rays are altered JFK skull x-rays.

BTW, Dr. Hodges also said that the skull x-rays show the 6.5 mm object "flattened against the outer table of the occiput" (p. 2). Thus, Hodges is yet another expert who has put the 6.5 mm object in the back of the head, not in the right supraorbital ridge. Nearly all the experts who've examined the x-rays have put the object in the back of the head, not near the right eye. Not having the advantage of OD measurements, Hodges naturally assumed that the 6.5 mm object was a bullet fragment ("large metallic fragment").

Dr. David Mantik shreds Nalli's research in his 29-page critique titled The Omissions and Miscalculations of Nicholas Nalli.

There is a lot of good information in the article, but also a lot of dubious speculation and specious inferences. I think the efforts to link George H. W. Bush to the JFK assassination are erroneous and embarrassing. I did not vote for Bush Sr. when he ran for reelection in 1992, and I opposed his Desert Storm intervention, but I think the "evidence" of his involvement in Kennedy's death is pitiful and unconvincing.

Holy cow, you must have a read a drastically misprinted version of Boot's book. You could not have read the same version I read. I cannot fathom how you could conclude that Boot's book explains why Lansdale would have wanted JFK dead. Boot just does the opposite and explains why the far-left fantasies about Lansdale as a JFKA conspirator are downright obscene. We could not have read the same book. I, too, recommend Boot's book, but not for the same reasons you do.

Yes, there was so much political debate because some left-wingers here just can't seem to resist using any excuse to take shots at Republicans/conservatives, to use any thread as a springboard for voicing their political views.

I disagree. I think Mary makes a convincing case that Jerrie Cobb was the CIA June Cobb and Katherine Taafe. You don't see the scar on the left forearm? I see at least half of it. Mary notes that part of the scar, the 6, is not really visible; however, I see a visible 2 on Jerrie Cobb's left forearm, and I see some kind of scar next to the 2, as Mary notes--part of it could be the circular part of a 6. The odds that it's a coincidence that Jerrie Cobb had a 2 on her left forearm and a scar next to the 2 and that Katherine Taafe had a 26 carved into her left forearm are too remote to fathom. Similarly, the odds that it's a coincidence that Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb both exited the same South American jungle with a disease that scarred the same clavicle are too remote to fathom. And the odds that all the many parallel life experiences and actions of Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb are a coincidence are equally mind boggling. I am unsure/reserving judgment about several of Mary's claims, but I believe she has made a compelling case that Jerrie Cobb was the CIA June Cobb and Katherine Taafe. I also think she makes a strong case that the Babushka Lady's actions before, during, and after the shooting are suspicious.

In 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, then the chief of neuroradiology at the John Hopkins medical school, was asked to examine the JFK autopsy materials for the Rockefeller Commission. Among other things, he noted in his report that a "goodly portion" of the right brain was "missing": AP and two lateral views show. . . . A goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing and the anterior part of the right cranial cavity contains air. (p. 2, LINK) The absence of a good portion of the right side of the brain means the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent. Dr. Hodges’ observation that in the skull x-rays “a goodly portion of the right brain is apparently missing” has been confirmed by Dr. Mantik, Dr. Chesser, and Dr. Aguilar. Dr. Mantik confirmed this both with direct analysis and with optical density measurements, determining that over one-half of the right side of the brain is missing in the skull x-rays. Further confirmation of a large amount of missing brain comes from a surprising source: Dr. James Humes. Humes admitted to JAMA that "two thirds of the right cerebrum had been blown away" (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA], May 27, 1992, p. 2798). Even the ARRB's forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, who was loathe to see any evidence of fraud in the autopsy materials, said that the upper-right dark region on the AP x-ray indicates "some absence of brain" (Meeting Report: Independent Review of JFK Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs By Outside Consultant, 2/9/96, ARRB, p. 1). As most here know, we also have a number of eyewitness accounts, from three different locations, that a substantial part of the brain was blown out. In addition, we know that bits of JFK's brain were blown onto 16 surfaces, including the windshields of the two left-trailing patrolmen, the windshield of the follow-up car, Agent Kinney's clothes, the limo's trunk, Jackie's dress, and several surfaces inside the limo. Yet, the autopsy brain photos show a virtually intact brain with no more than 1-2 ounces of tissue missing, as even Vince Bugliosi and Michael Baden gladly acknowledged and insisted. Given these facts, it is not surprising that the chief autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that he was certain that the brain photos in evidence are not the brain photos he took. Also, although the Rockefeller Commission's final report endorsed the Clark Panel's cowlick entry site for the rear head entry wound, Dr. Hodges rejected the site in his report and said the EOP entry site was correct (pp. 2-3). A little more about Dr. Hodges: He began his career as a professor of radiology at the Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology at Washington University. He served as president of the American Society of Neuroradiology for two years. He conducted numerous experiments to study the effects on animals and humans of penetrating wounds from high-velocity bullets. He was a highly respected reviewer for the American Journal of Neuroradiology and was a charter member of the Association of University Radiologists and of the American Society of Neuroradiology.

BTW, Mary's book just got a great review on JFKFacts.org: The Labyrinth of 'A Woman I Know' - by Peter Voskamp (substack.com)

Leslie, in the interest of fairness and accuracy, I respectfully suggest that you should refrain from making further comments on Mary's book until you have read it. You have made a number of inaccurate statements about the book and have raised objections to the book that the book capably addresses.

The first thing I'll note is that Fred holds pro-conspiracy witnesses to a draconian standard that he never applies to non-conspiracy witnesses, and this article is another example of that practice. Anyway, a few statements in the article caught my eye: Really? That is not at all certain. For a number of reasons, the affair could have made her more likely, not less likely, to raise issues about Fruge. Without knowing the duration and dynamics of the affair, it is hard to say how it would have affected Dischler, but the blanket statement that the affair would have made her less likely to raise concerns about Fruge is debatable. Furthermore, as Fred himself notes, Dischler said that Fruge embezzled some of her money. This would have understandably made her more likely to be harsher in her views about Fruge when she was interviewed years later. Fred's conclusion is that since Fruge acted dishonestly in some instances, he must have fabricated everything he claimed about the Clinton witnesses and about Rose Cheramie. This is just not a strong position, given the totality of the evidence on those subjects. If we applied Fred's standard to Jack Ruby and David Ferrie, we would have even more reasons to reject or strongly doubt their denials of involvement in the assassination, their denials of knowing Oswald, their denials that there was anything sinister about their actions (e.g., Ruby's apparent stalking of Oswald, Ruby's presence at Parkland soon after the shooting, Ferrie's highly suspicious "skating trip" to Houston on 11/22), etc., etc. Fred still clings to the position that Ferrie and Oswald did not know each other, a position that even ardent WC defender Stephen Knott rejects.

For everyone's information, Mark Shaw is aware of Jim's attacks on him and on his research. He just does not feel that Jim's attacks warrant a response. He feels that the tone and content of the attacks will tend to discredit them in the eyes of most fair-minded, objective people. Personally, I follow the principle that someone who agrees with me on most essentials is not my enemy, and therefore I will not go out of my way to attack him (or her). Also, my "essentials" do not include the outlandish claims made by the likes of Fletcher Prouty.

At some point, you are going to have to admit that you cannot accept the EOP entry site without conceding that the autopsy brain photos are fraudulent, because those photos show a virtually undamaged cerebellum and right-rear occipital lobe. There is no credible, feasible path from the sixth-floor window, or from any other nearby upper-floor window, that can hit at the EOP site without tearing through the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe. Nothing in Chapters 16b and 16c explains or shows how a bullet fired from the sixth-floor window or from another upper-floor window could have entered at the EOP site and avoided tearing through the cerebellum and the right-rear occipital lobe. Any scenario that accepts the EOP entry site but also accepts the brain photos as genuine is impossible.

Researchers have long noted Sibert and O'Neill's intriguing reference to a bullet fragment "at the rear of the skull" in their 11/26/63 report on the autopsy (p. 4), since the autopsy report says nothing about a back-of-head bullet fragment. Sibert and O'Neill said it was the "next largest fragment" and that it appeared to be "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone." The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment discovered within the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the skull; it is close to the lambda, and the lambda is the meeting point of the lambdoid suture and the sagittal suture at the top of the occiput, i.e., the spot where the three cranial plates (the two parietal bones and the occipital bone) meet in the back of the head. However, the autopsy report says that the second-largest fragment was 3 x 1 mm in size, and Humes repeatedly and clearly said that the 3 x 1 mm fragment was the second-largest fragment. Moreover, that fragment was nowhere near the back of the skull but was close to the right orbit, as we can see on the skull x-rays. And let us keep in mind that Humes measured the fragment after he removed it from the skull. Some researchers, myself included, rightly suspect that Sibert and O'Neill's entry about a rear-head fragment was based on a discussion that the autopsy doctors had about the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment that was later discovered within the image of the 6.5 mm object, and that the autopsy doctors chose to suppress the fragment's existence because of the severe problems it posed for their scenario of the shooting. Being near the rear "juncture of the skull bone," the fragment was far too high to be associated with the EOP entry site, and there was no other entry wound that could account for its presence near the lambda. So, the autopsy doctors opted to suppress the fragment's existence, just as they did with the high fragment trail. They did not mention the back-of-head fragment and the high fragment trail in the autopsy report; however, they did not know that Sibert and O'Neill would mention the back-of-head fragment in their 11/26/23 report. This could be one of the reasons that Sibert and O'Neill's report was not included in the WC volumes and was suppressed for years. The 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment could be described as the second-largest fragment on the x-rays, second only to the 7 x 2 mm fragment near the right orbit. Indeed, without the benefit of high magnification, the 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment may have appeared to the autopsy doctors to be somewhat smaller, especially given its appearance on the lateral skull x-rays. It goes without saying that Sibert and O’Neill could not have been describing a conversation about the 6.5 mm object seen on the AP skull x-ray, since the object was not on the AP x-ray during the autopsy, and since the object would have been the largest and most obvious fragment on the skull x-rays.

That is farcical fiction. The only genocide in Cambodia was carried out by the Communists after they took over the country in April 1975, a takeover that Kissinger had tried mightily to prevent. This fiction is as baffling as your earlier claim that U.S. bombing left Indochina looking "like the surface of the Moon," when in fact at least 70% of the land in Indochina never had a single American bomb dropped on it. And I can't fathom how anyone could seriously believe that Kissinger was the "champ of genocides" in Pakistan and East Timor.

"Doctor Death"??? Oh, boy. More far-left paranoia and moral confusion. Compared to Ho Chi Minh, Mao Tse Tung, Choi En Lai, Le Duan, Putin, etc., Kissinger was a saint. So when the last helicopter left Saigon, Kissinger allegedly told an old college buddy that we never should have been in Vietnam, hey? That's very odd, given what other Kissinger friends and aides said about the feelings he expressed to them about the war, and especially given his passionate defense of our noble war effort in his book Ending the Vietnam War: A History of America's Involvement in and Extrication from the Vietnam War.

@Leslie SharpI shared the photo with Mary. She said she already had it.

I believe that some of the plotters intended to use Oswald's real/alleged MC activities to implicate Russia and Cuba. However, Hoover clearly was not on board with this effort--he very quickly took steps to squelch it. (I believe that Hoover had some knowledge of the plot and did nothing to stop it.) I lean toward the view that LBJ at least suspected there was a plot brewing. He, like Hoover, took immediate steps to squelch the idea that the Soviets and/or the Cubans were behind the assassination.

Yes, will do. Thanks.

Humm, if I said that about you, I'm pretty sure I'd get a moderator warning. Anyway, I think it is embarrassing that this thread is still going. The case for a John Lennon assassination conspiracy is ludicrous--it is built on reading miles between the lines and on choosing to see dark, sinister implications in meaningless discrepancies in the reports/accounts on the shooting.

The most balanced and comprehensive analysis that I have seen of JFK's civil rights policies is Dr. Stephen Knott's analysis in Coming to Terms with John F. Kennedy. Any analysis that denies that JFK's initial civil rights moves were somewhat timid and halting is peddling mythology. That being said, critics from both ends of the spectrum usually ignore the fact that a few months before he died, JFK, at great political risk, openly threw the full might of his presidency behind bold civil rights reform.

I forgot to include the fact that the record shows that LBJ repeatedly indicated deep concern that escalating the Vietnam War would interfere with his domestic agenda, especially with the Great Society.

I just finished reading Knott's book. Technically, yes, it does challenge the Camelot legacy, but only parts of it. Overall, on balance, the book is quite pro-JFK. More often than not, Knott challenges conservative and liberal attacks on JFK. He challenges conservative attacks on JFK regarding the Berlin Crisis, the "missile gap," the space program, Laos, etc., and he answers liberal attacks on JFK regarding his initially weak and halting support for civil rights, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, his resumption of nuclear testing, and his overall handling of the Cold War. Knott cautiously and somewhat tepidly comes down on the side of the extreme minority viewpoint that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election. He allows that the case for this view is "not a slam dunk" and that JFK may well have continued to provide military and economic aid to South Vietnam after the withdrawal. He even says he might be wrong about JFK's intention to withdraw. But, he does make it clear that he personally strongly leans toward the unconditional-withdrawal position. His chapter on the assassination is curious and maddening. He adamantly and repeatedly argues that it is beyond question that Oswald shot JFK, that there was no conspiracy, and that anyone who believes otherwise deserves to have their credibility questioned. However, he also spends considerable time taking certain conspiratorial arguments seriously, such as the argument that the Mafia killed JFK. He acknowledges that Oswald associated with David Ferrie, and that Silvia Odio was credible. He calls David Kaiser's book The Road to Dallas "reputable." Knott's bottom line is that JFK was a good president, even one of the top ten best presidents, in spite of his sordid personal life.

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close. After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam. These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.