Michael Griffith

The very idea that McClellan placed the large wound in the left temple is absurd on its face. Nothing he's ever said supports such a nonsensical claim. Why would McClellan have invented a large wound in "the right posterior portion of the skull" (6 H 33) in his WC testimony? It seems that Pat spends most of his time in this forum attacking the best evidence for multiple gunmen and conspiracy. If you were a newcomer to the forum and knew nothing about Pat, you might well assume that he favors the single-assassin view. The WC apologists who reside in the JFK Assassination Forum frequently quote Pat on the medical evidence.

Mary Haverstick has an interesting segment on Ruth Paine in her new book A Woman I Know. Haverstick implies that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset assigned to manipulate and monitor the Oswalds. Among many other things, Haverstick, having grown up among Quakers, questions Ruth Paine's Quaker credentials.

Here's an even better question: How in the world could Weitzman and Boone have missed the "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" markings on the weapon and confused the weapon for a 7.65 German Mauser, bearing in mind that many Mausers have "Mauser" stamped on them and that Craig said the weapon was stamped "Mauser"? Even if you choose to believe Craig was lying, it is true that many Mausers are stamped "Mauser" and that the alleged murder weapon has "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" clearly stamped on it. You can't imagine how one rifle could be quickly swapped for another without anyone noticing? Really? How long would it have taken to hand over one rifle and take the other? 3-4 seconds, if they were slow? But you can't fathom how this could have been done without anyone noticing? Of course not. Because you want the most benign, neatest, no-frills, sterile conspiracy possible.

The alleged murder rifle itself (CE 139) has "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" stamped on it. It also has "Terni" and the Italian royal crown as part of the Terni factory symbol stamped on it. It is hard to imagine how anyone could have missed those markings. If this was an intel operation, which I think it was, there would have been a lot of compartmentalization. The sixth-floor team that hid their rifle in between the boxes may not have known that their rifle would be swapped out for a different weapon. I've always found it odd that it took so long for Lt. Day to depart the building with the alleged murder weapon.

The article repeats the claim that it was entirely understandable that a gun enthusiast such as Weitzman mistook the 6.5 Italian Carcano for a 7.65 German Mauser, never mind that the Carcano had "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" clearly stamped on it. Both Weitzman and Boone identified the rifle as a Mauser in their initial written statements, but then later claimed they were mistaken.

Mark Shaw has written some outstanding books on Dorothy Kilgallen's JFK research and on her murder. Two of his best ones are The Reporter Who Knew Too Much (2016) and Fighting for Justice (2022). His 2022 book includes important disclosures from a WC whistleblower and additional evidence that Dorothy was murdered. Dorothy was one of the earliest skeptics of the lone-gunman theory. On several occasions she used her widely read newspaper column to present evidence of a conspiracy in JFK's death. For example, she interviewed Acquilla Clemons and noted in her column that Clemons' account contradicted the claim that Oswald shot Tippit.

I don't understand your thread title because the documentary certainly does not prove there was no exit hole in the back of the head.

Haverstick found a woman who had known the CIA June Cobb very well, and the woman identified two photos of Jerrie Cobb as the woman she had known as June Cobb. The woman’s name was Fortuna Calvo-Roth. She was a reporter at a Spanish-language weekly in NYC that the CIA had used for communications between agents and their handlers. I quote from Haverstick’s account of Fortuna’s identification of Jerrie Cobb as June Cobb—and note that she explains the issue of how Cobb wore her hair: When I reached out to Fortuna Calvo-Roth, she was retired and still living in Manhattan after having become the first female editor of a major magazine at Vision, among other accomplishments. Admittedly, I didn’t say up front that a goal from the interview was an identification. It just seemed too far-fetched to bring up double identities, even in the form of a question. Instead, I explained that I was researching a number of fascinating women who had worked with Fidel Castro, and that I was especially interested in his American assistant, June Cobb. I designed a sheet of images for the identification featuring nine headshots, mostly of women who had worked with Castro. I included a photo of Jerrie, and in fact I used two. I also included two of another American woman accused of spying in Cuba, Marjorie Lennox. As for June, I used just one image—the picture June had sent to Newman. It was the clearest image by far and had unimpeachable sourcing. . . . As Fortuna reminisced about the trip, I asked if she’d come into contact with Castro or any of the women who worked in his office. She hadn’t. I then asked if she’d run into June Cobb, who’d worked for Fidel as a secretary of some sort in Havana. She said she hadn’t run into June Cobb in Cuba, but that she knew June well and saw her regularly, but always in New York. And there was my moment. I brought out my photo sheet and asked if she saw a picture of June on it, or if she recognized any of the women. She didn’t recognize the other women, but she did recognize June. She pointed first to one, then to the other photo of Jerrie Cobb. But Fortuna was perplexed, because June never wore her hair that way. She held her hands over Jerrie’s hair to better isolate the face. Yes, this looked like June, she said, but she never styled herself that way. I asked how June typically looked, and she said June always wore her hair in a chignon, an elegant French bun. June evidently wore the chignon without fail, and Fortuna couldn’t figure out why she wasn’t wearing it in the photos. We lingered over the photo sheet for some time, and while Fortuna was sure Jerrie was June, the hair just “wasn’t right.” I turned her attention to the photo June had sent to Newman. “Was this June?” No, she said very quickly and certainly. That was not June. (pp. 63-64) The more I read Haverstick’s book (I’m on Chapter 8), the more I believe that Haverstick has uncovered some historic information about the JFK case.

Sibert and O'Neill's beliefs about the bullet's direction do not change the fact that they both said they saw a large wound in the back of the head, and that O'Neill said the back-of-head photo had been "doctored." I already noted that Van Hoesen was describing the hole he saw after skull reconstruction. I noted that already, yet you repeat it as though you're proving something. How about the Parkland nurses who cleaned the head wound, packed it with gauze, and wrapped the head in a sheet? Hey? Did they all not know the difference between a wound in the back of the head and a wound above the right ear? How about Aubrey Rike, who was actually holding JFK's head while he helped put the body into the casket and who felt the sharp edges of a large wound in the back of the head? I notice you skipped over Robinson's repeated statements that he saw and handled a large wound in the back of the head? Yes, I've read your book. You keep claiming that your book resolves issues that it does not resolve, as I have proved in two other threads. If I had to pick one researcher whose research may well suggest that they are a plant or that they are actually trying to hurt the case for conspiracy, I would be tempted to pick you.

None of this addresses Lumumba's violent repression and severe political blunders. He ordered violence against people for voicing the slightest criticism of him. He was hardly the paragon of virtue and democracy that many liberals paint him as being. Two of his serious political errors were accepting Soviet aid and then publicly bragging about his Soviet support. Given the vital strategic importance of the Congo, those actions put a target on his back.

The amount of evidence you're ignoring/dismissing is breathtaking. Let's start with the accounts that the Dallas doctors wrote within hours of the assassination, before anyone knew what the official tale about the head wounds would be. A few things to keep in mind while you read the accounts below: Cerebellar tissue, i.e., tissue from the cerebellum, is located only in the lower part of the back of the head, and is easy to distinguish from other brain tissue. Occipital bone is located only in the back of the back of the head. Occipital bone is the bone in the occiput, which is centered in the back of the skull. The temporal bone is below the parietal bone and borders the occipital region. The majority of the temporal bone is behind the ear, i.e., the majority of it is on what most people would call “the back of the head.” Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon: Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted. . . . There was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region, from which profuse bleeding was occurring. . . . There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound. (Summary report of Dr. Kemp Clark, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) COMMENT: Cerebellar tissue could only have extruded from the wound if part of the wound was in the occipital region, so it is no surprise that Dr. Clark said the large wound was in the right occipital-parietal region. His wording suggests that most of the wound was occipital. Dr. Charles Carrico: Two wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of the neck in lower 1/3. The other wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue present and profuse oozing. . . . . . . wound of the trachea was seen immediately below the larynx. . . . . . . attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue. . . . (Admission note of Dr. Charles Carrico, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) COMMENT: If the throat wound was “immediately below the larynx,” then it was above the collar, just as Carrico told the WC. Dr. Malcolm Perry: A small wound was noted in the midline of the neck, in the lower third anteriorly. It was exuding blood slowly. A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted. (Treatment report of Dr. Malcolm Perry, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392) COMMENT: The large was wound in the “right posterior” of the skull. Dr. Charles Baxter: The president had a wound in the midline of the neck. . . . wounds of the temporal and occipital bones . . . and the brain was lying on the table. (Admission note of Dr. Charles Baxter, 11/22/63, p. 1, CE 392) Dr. Robert McClelland: The president was at that time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head and a fragment wound of the trachea. . . . Cause of death was the massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. (Admission note of Dr. Robert McClelland, 11/22/63, pp. 1-2, CE 392) COMMENT: Dr. McClelland probably meant JFK’s right temple, which would have been his “left” temple from McClelland’s perspective. Several other witnesses saw a small wound in the right temple, including the mortician, Tom Robinson. Note, also, that McClelland believed a fragment could have caused the throat wound, so it must have been small. Dr. Marion T. Jenkins: There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was herniation and laceration of great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. (Statement of Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, 11/22/63, p. 2, CE 392) COMMENT: Again, part of the large hole was in the occiput, and tissue from the cerebellum, which is located only at the back of the head, protruded from the wound. Compare these fresh, only-hours-old statements on the large head wound with those of other Parkland medical personnel made a few months later: Dr. Ronald Jones, Parkland doctor: . . . he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head. . . . There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted with the brain. . . . The hole [in the throat] was very small and relatively clean cut, as you would see in a bullet that is entering rather than exiting from a patient. (6 H 53-56) Dr. Gene Akin, Parkland doctor: The back of the right occipital-parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding. . . . I assume the right occipital-parietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head. . . . This [the neck wound] must have been an entrance wound. . . . (6 H 65-67) Dr. Paul Peters, Parkland doctor: It was pointed out that an examination of the brain had been done. . . . We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound. . . . I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. . . . (6 H 70-71) Nurse Patricia Hutton, who helped treat Kennedy: Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound in the back of his head. . . . A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head. (21 H 216) Nurse Diana Bowron, who helped treat Kennedy, who packed gauze squares into his head wound, and who wrapped his head in a sheet to prepare the body for the casket: Mr. SPECTER. You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON. The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER. And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON. Well, it was very bad--you know. Mr. SPECTER. How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON. I just saw one large hole. (6 H 136) Nurse Margaret Henchliffe, a Parkland nurse who helped treat JFK: Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound anywhere on his body? Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes; he was very bloody, his head was very bloody when I saw him at the time. Mr. SPECTER. Did you ever see any wound in any other part of his body? Miss HENCHLIFFE. When I first saw him—except his head. Mr. SPECTER. Did you see any wound on any other part of his body? Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes: in the neck. Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe it, please? Miss HENCHLIFFE. It was just a little hole in the middle of his neck. Mr. SPECTER. About how big a hole was it? Miss HENCHLIFFE. About as big around as the end of my little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Have you ever had any experience with bullet holes? Miss HENCHLIFFE. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And what did that appear to you to be? Miss HENCHLIFFE. An entrance bullet hole—it looked to me like. Mr. SPECTER. Could it have been an exit bullet hole? Miss HENCHLIFFE. I have never seen an exit bullet hole—I don't remember seeing one that looked like that. (6 H 141) Jackie Kennedy, JFK’s wife, who held his head in her hands on the way to the hospital: I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. (5 H 180, declassified version—this portion of her testimony was omitted from the published version, but it was “declassified” in 1972) Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who jumped onto the back of the limo and got a close-up look at JFK’s large head wound: Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head. (2 H 141) Agent Hill also saw JFK’s body at the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and he said the back wound was about 6 inches below the neck line: Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question? At the hospital in Texas, you had seen—had you seen the whole body, or just the back of the President's head? Mr. HILL. I had seen the whole body, but he was still cold when I saw him. Representative BOGGS. At the morgue in Bethesda he was not cold? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; the autopsy had been completed, and the Lawler Mortuary Co. was preparing the body for placement in a casket. Representative BOGGS. At this time did you see the whole body? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. Representative BOGGS. Did you see any other wound other than the head wound? Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column. (2 H 143) Hours later, at Bethesda Naval Hospital, after the autopsy, the mortician, Tom Robinson, had to fill the back-of-the-head wound to prepare the body for burial. He told the HSCA that he used “heavy-duty rubber . . . to fill this area . . . in the back of the head” (HSCA interview transcript, 1/12/1977, p. 3). He told the ARRB the same thing (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, pp. 3-4). He told the ARRB that there was “a large open head wound in the back of the President's head centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone as well as some scalp” (ARRB interview transcript, 6/18/1996, p. 3). Mind you: this is the guy who not only watched the autopsy but who helped to reassemble the skull after the autopsy. John Von Hoesen assisted Tom Robinson. Both he and Robinson worked for Gawler’s Funeral Home and helped prepare JFK’s body for burial. VonHoesen said the large head wound “was roughly the size of a small orange (estimated by gesturing with his hands) in the centerline of the back of the head,” and he specified that this hole was still visible after the head had been reconstructed (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2). Von Hoesen added that “the damaged area in the back of the President's head was not visible as the President lay supine in the casket and that it was covered by the pillow which the President's head was resting on” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/25/1996, p. 2). Joe Hagan was another Gawler’s Funeral Home technician who helped prepare JFK’s body for burial. He did not want to talk to the ARRB and had to be subpoenaed. At first he refused to describe the large head wound that he saw during and after the autopsy. After being repeatedly pressed to report what he saw, he said that "all of this was open in the back” while holding his two hands about 6 inches away from his upper posterior skull gesturing to the area between both of his own ears on the back of his head (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3) When describing how the large head wound looked while the head was being reconstructed, he said it was in the “posterior skull” (ARRB interview transcript, 4/16/1996, p. 3). James Sibert was an FBI agent who attended the autopsy and who remained at Bethesda for a while after the autopsy. He saw Robinson and other Gawler’s technicians getting ready to prepare JFK’s body for burial. Sibert told the ARRB there was “a large cavity” at the “back part of the head” and, while motioning, he said, "It’s in the back part of the head here” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/11/1997, pp. 66-71). Francis O’Neill was the other FBI agent who attended the autopsy. He and Sibert wrote a report on the autopsy. O’Neill repeatedly told the ARRB that there was brain and bone missing “from the back of the head, behind the ear” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 117) Years earlier, O’Neill told the HSCA the same thing. When the ARRB interviewer showed O’Neill autopsy photo F3 (the back-of-the-head photo), he said, “This looks like it’s been doctored in some way,” and he recalled there was “a larger [sic] opening in the back of the head” (ARRB interview transcript, 9/12/1997, p. 158). And on and on and on we could go. But you brush aside this and other evidence because of your ideological rejection of the very idea of altered medical evidence. This is one reason that WC apologists just love to quote you.

Regarding Patrice Lumumba, liberals tend to whitewash or ignore his tyrannical actions and deadly political blunders that triggered his assassination. The segment on Lumumba in JFK Revisited is typical of the uncritical, one-sided liberal portrayals of him. No, I do not condone Eisenhower's decision to order Lumumba's death, and I certainly do not condone how the CIA carried out the order, but I can certainly understand why Ike, John and Allen Dulles, and others in the intel community believed that Lumumba had to be eliminated. If you want to get the other side of the story on Lumumba, here is a good article on him in the UN's publication UN News: Character Sketches: Patrice Lumumba by Brian Urquhart | UN News

The throat-wound projectile could have been removed during the illicit pre-autopsy surgery identified by Doug Horne. The projectile may not have been a bullet but a small fragment of glass from the windshield, as some researchers, including Dr. Mantik, have suggested. Dr. Nathan Jacobs pointed out that the Parkland doctors described a laceration of the pharynx and trachea that was larger than the throat wound, indicating that the bullet had traveled from the front of the neck to the back (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p. 158 n 39).

The Walker note and the Kostin letter smell to high heaven, and her delay in handing them over strikes me as suspicious. I don't buy her lame explanation for her "we both know who is responsible" phone call with her husband.

I have not seen anyone comment on the fact that Ruth Paine acknowledged to the WC that she studied Russian at the Middlebury College language school. Intelligence agencies frequently sent people to learn Russian at Middlebury. And Middlebury was not cheap. I was once slated to attend a Hebrew course at Middlebury when I worked in military intelligence, but my unit's training funding fell through. I see several reasons to suspect Ruth Paine of involvement in the plot: Her "we both know who is responsible" phone call with Michael Paine. Her role in getting Oswald a job at the TSBD. Her family members who had intelligence ties. And her role in handing over questionable evidence against Oswald.

There is some anecdotal evidence that LBJ had advance knowledge of the assassination. If he did, he may not have known many details about the plot, or he may have been one of the plotters. He was corrupt and evil enough to do that, but I'm unsure about his role in the plot. If the plotters were radical right-wingers, it seems very odd that they allowed LBJ to pursue a liberal agenda on so many issues, e.g., civil rights, voting rights, immigration, healthcare (Medicare and Medicaid), right-to-work laws, welfare spending, and housing.

You should have asked, "Why do all these people who claim the emperor is naked refuse to see that he is wearing brand new clothes?" It is just comical that you would get on a public board and pretend that there is anything sensible or logical about the SBT. Your refusal to acknowledge that the Zapruder film plainly, obviously, clearly, and indisputably shows that JFK and Connally were hit by separate bullets is as discrediting and inexcusable as the Flat Earthers' refusal to admit the Earth is round.

Although the video at least admits that JFK and Connally were not aligned--and that is a huge admission--it stumbles badly on other issues. For instance, it assumes the back wound was a through-and-through wound, but we now know that on the night of the autopsy the pathologists absolutely, positively determined, via prolonged probing and body manipulation, that the back wound was shallow and had no exit point. The most plausible explanation for the back wound is that it was made by a large fragment from the bullet that several witnesses saw strike near JFK's limo early in the shooting. This bullet also sent a few small fragments streaking toward JFK's head, and they embedded themselves on the rear outer table of the skull. A fragment-created back wound would explain Custer's account of seeing a large fragment fall from JFK's back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. It would also explain the wound's shallow depth and upward trajectory.

In Lone-Gunman Land, the SBT always works, no matter what, even when its own proponents contradict each other about JFK's and Connally's positions and the location of the back wound. Heck, when the HSCA FPP determined that the WC mislocated the back wound by about 2 inches, the SBTers said, "It still works if you assume that JFK was leaning far forward when the bullet struck!" Yeah, except that no film or photo shows him leaning far forward during the SBT timeframe.

I am halfway through Chapter 2 and am already blown away. This is a serious, credible work of scholarship. The similarities between Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb are astonishing, both in their number and in their nature. The odds that these similarities are all just coincidences are too remote to calculate. Consider: -- Both came from Ponca City, Oklahoma. They were the same height and weight. Both lived for a time in Norman, Oklahoma. Both were in the same Civil Air Patrol unit. Both were fluent Spanish speakers. Both lived extensively in Latin America. Both left home in their twenties for South America. Both lobbied on behalf of the Indigenous tribes at the Amazon headwaters. Both visited the isolated Andes mountains in the early 1950s, when almost no white people had ever been there. Both advocated for causes related to the coca-leaf-chewing habits of the Andean natives. Both exited the jungle from their expeditions burdened by a lifelong jungle-borne disease. -- Once in South America, both worked for aviation firms serving identical countries—Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru. Both traveled into dark corners of the Amazon jungle, and both got there by flying with a dashing new love who was also a pilot. Both considered their respective affairs to be the love of their lives, and both relationships ended tragically. Neither would find true love again, while both carried the emotional and physical scars for years to come. I continue by quoting Haverstick: In their thirties, both women found themselves in lofty company. Both could count among their friends numerous Latin American leaders, titans of industry, and celebrated artists. Both had connections in the White House who were standing by if they had trouble clearing U.S. customs when reentering the country. Incredibly, the two small-town Oklahoma blonds were circulating with the intellectual, political, and industrial elites who were shaping world history, particularly as it pertained to Latin America. The Astonishing List of Similarities had expanded to encompass not only the arcs of their lives and travel itineraries but also the class of influential power brokers with whom they socialized. (pp. 9-10) We're still not done with the amazing list of similarities between the two women: -- Both traveled the same geographic circuit of cities in perpetual motion. Both had indications of wealth but no visible means of support. Both disappeared for extended periods of time during their lives. Both were well connected to the national and international press. Both used pseudonyms with the initials “JC.” -- Both opposed some of John F. Kennedy’s policies. Both were in Mexico City six weeks before Kennedy was killed. Both intersected with events surrounding Kennedy’s death. Both adopted a reclusive lifestyle during the assassination investigations. Folks, Haverstick is onto something, and it is important. I haven't gotten to her section on the photographic evidence yet, but I see that it is extensive. As I said, I'm only about halfway through Chapter 2, but I am already very impressed with the book. I was especially intrigued to read that a CIA officer posing as a DoD agent befriended Haverstick and then told her that her information on Jerrie Cobb was "classified" and tried to intimidate her from completing her movie about Cobb (she did stop working on the movie, but not because of the CIA officer). And, importantly, Jerrie Cobb admitted to Haverstick that she was the pilot of the mystery plane at Red Bird Airport on 11/22/63.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Thanks for that informative summary, Greg. Now I am even more anxious to read the book (in this case, listen to the book). I note that in the article Haverstick speculates about one of the Cobbs impersonating the other. As with most other books, it is entirely possible that Haverstick is right about some things and wrong about other things. Thanks again for the helpful summary.

Once again we have some liberals who are trying to twist JFK's views into something they were not to make it seem like JFK agreed with their radical leftist position, when in fact he did not. Some liberals have become radicalized against Israel and even minimize or whitewash the Nazi-like brutality of Hamas and Hezbollah. We see an effort by some of these folks to twist JFK's position on Israel to resemble their own. JFK was not even remotely anti-Israeli. Let's read some of what JFK himself said on the subject: Israel is a land of many paradoxes, yet it has an inner strength and harmony which few nations of our time possess. Prime Minister Ben-Gurion observed some years ago: "If you don't believe in miracles here, you aren't a realist". There are many such contrasts in the life of Israel. First of all, in Israel the present and the past are closely linked. They are part of a seamless web. We celebrate today the tenth anniversary of the State of Israel, yet the people of Israel have an identity and history which reaches back well over two centuries. The Israelis in a sense are the oldest of people and the youngest of nations. In Israel there is a constant process of rediscovery. . . . The State of Israel, I have said, is armed – yet it is not militaristic. Even the need for troops has not been socially wasteful in the new nation. Every man and woman owes service to the state, and the training is very intensive. Yet this training is often combined with work on the land – with taming the desert, irrigating the rocky soil, building roads, aiding in village development and construction. The army is actually a great force for unifying and educating the people. It introduces a sense of equality and stature. It offers for many an important period of education and higher training. Nor has Israeli military and foreign policy yielded to the dangers of an empty militancy. On the day that the State of Israel came into existence on May 14, 1948 the Secretary-General of the Arab League declared: "This will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." Though this statement did not represent perhaps the whole body of Arab opinion, it is a statement which has found no echo among responsible leaders in Israel. Self-preservation, not imperialism, has been the dominant and just note struck in Israel. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/israels-tenth-anniversary-washington-dc-19580511) And: I spent two weeks in Palestine in 1939. There the neglect and ruin left by centuries of the Ottoman Empire were slowly being transformed under conditions of the utmost difficulty by labor and sacrifice. But Palestine was still a land of promise in 1939 rather than a land of fulfillment. I went back in 1951. In three years, this new state had opened up its doors to 600,000 people. The United States, composed of 175 million people, has an immigration of all we can take, we say, of 250,000 a year. Even while fighting for its own survival Israel has given hope to the persecuted all over the world and it has given a new dignity to those who believe in religious freedom in every part of this globe. . . . Three weeks ago, I said in a public statement Israel is here to stay. The next day I was attacked by the Cairo radio rebuking me for my faith in Israel and quoting this criticism from Arabic newspaper Al-Gomhouria. . . . The ideals of Zionism have, in the last half century, been endorsed by both parties, and by Americans of all ranks in all sections. Friendship for Israel is not a partisan matter. It is a national commitment. . . . The Israelis surrendered their 1956 victory only because the United States and the United Nations committed themselves to the fulfillment of a pledge of free transit in the Suez Canal. So this is a United Nations resolution, in which we have a particular moral obligation. (https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/new-york-ny-19600826)

Thanks. As I mentioned earlier, Dr. David Mantik read the book and gave me favorable feedback on it. My views on the medical evidence are 99% identical with his views, and with the views of Dr. Michael Chesser, Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Greg Henkelmann, etc., etc.--if that helps any. As for the chapter on JFK's Vietnam policies, its contents mirror the views of the overwhelming majority of scholars who've studied the subject. Even the vast majority of liberal historians who've written on the topic, including the likes of Karnow, Moise, Chomsky, and Logevall, agree that JFK had no intention of totally and unconditionally withdrawing from Vietnam after the election. Thank you again for the positive feedback on my book and for recommending it.

Well now, that's curious, because I can see a resemblance between the two, even though the pictures were obviously taken many years apart, even though the pictures were taken from different angles and from different distances, and even though one photo is color and the other is B&W.