Michael Griffith

Overall, I would give it a solid B. One of the worst snafus is the claim that Fletcher Prouty "protected President Eisenhower." Prouty, of course, for years spread the lie that he had worked in presidential protection. He finally came clean in his ARRB interview, when he admitted that his duties had nothing to do with presidential protection. Another error is the segment on JFK and Vietnam. But, given the sources that video's producer obviously used, it's not surprising that he repeated the myths about JFK's Vietnam intentions, NSAM 273, etc.

Perhaps an even more plausible theory is that the back wound was caused by a large fragment from the shot that struck near the right rear of JFK's limo early in the shooting. This would explain the back wound's slightly upward trajectory, the wound's shallow depth, and Custer's account of seeing a large fragment fall from JFK's back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays. The most likely, really the only plausible, explanation for the two back-of-head bullet fragments is that they are ricochet fragments from the bullet that several witnesses said struck just behind and to the right side of JFK's limo early in the shooting. The same shot may well have sent a large fragment streaking toward JFK's back.

This is sad, wrong, and embarrassing. Unlike Truman and Ike, JFK sold the Hawk anti-air missile system to Israel. As I've documented in other threads, JFK made several speeches in which he made his pro-Israeli position clear. Yes, JFK wanted the Dimona site inspected, and, yes, the Israelis resisted this. They did so because they correctly believed that if any nation on Earth had the moral right to have nukes, it was Israel. JFK was simply wrong on this issue. Friends don't always agree. The "Palestinians" would not have lost any land if their radical, pro-Hitler leaders had not rejected the 1947 UN partition plan. Their leaders were so confident that the five neighboring Arab nations could wipe the Jews into the sea in short order that they foolishly rejected the UN plan and told the five neighboring leaders that they would welcome an invasion. But, incredibly enough, the Jews fought off the five invading armies and won their independence, and formed the only democracy in the Middle East.

You are severely misstating the evidence. You ignore the initial, 11/22/63 reports written by the Dallas doctors. Over and over again they said there was a large right-rear wound. You ignore the numerous statements from the medical personnel and federal agents at the autopsy--nearly all of them said they saw a large right-rear/back-of-head wound. You ignore the devastating and crucial accounts of the Parkland nurses who handled the skull, who cleaned the skull, who packed the head wound with gauze, and who prepared the body for placement in the casket--all of them insisted there was a large wound in the back of the head. And you ignore the telling account of Aubrey Rike, who actually held the back of JFK's head in his hands while he helped place the body in the casket--he could feel the sharp edges of the back-of-head wound. How you can say that the skeptics have "completely failed to make their case" is hard to comprehend. You take the word of a handful of witnesses who deny the back-of-head wound and ignore the far more numerous witnesses who said they saw it (and in some cases actually handled it).

Well, my copy arrived a day early (Thursday) so already through the first 100 pages. Pages that cover the W.C., H.S.C.A. & A.R.R.B. 'investigations' and documents their findings/conclusions. I'm fairly conversant with these findings, but I have found information on some things I had put down as hearsay, or had not come across previously, that the text has highlighted. To quote the back cover:- "This is a solid, credible presentation of evidence that more than one gunman shot President John F. Kennedy, written by one of the most careful and respected researchers on the JFK case. This book has none of the exotic speculation, dubious claims, and extreme ideological bias found in so many other books on the JFK assassination." Another four hundred or so pages to read, and I will look forward to future reviews of Michael's work on this thread. I'm enjoying the book so far. Congrats Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Pete. Much appreciated.

The main point of the chapter is that the dented shell could not have fired a bullet on 11/22/63. The shallow back wound could have been caused by a short shot, a shot that was traveling at a greatly reduced speed. Since the throat shot was the first hit, JFK's back muscles would have been very tight from stress and tension--this would have helped to prevent the back-wound bullet from penetrating more than a short distance. (JFK starts the motion of reaching for his throat at around Z202 in response to the throat shot, long before he is obviously hit in the back and jolted forward at Z226-232.) Science tells us that bullets that are traveling as "slowly" as 165-200 fps can penetrate skin. A bullet traveling at 200 fps has a max effective range of about 75-100 feet. A bullet moving at 400 fps has a max effective range of about 150-200 feet. A bullet moving at 600 fps has a max effective range of about 200-300 feet. If the back wound was caused by a short shot, I would guess that its velocity was somewhere around 600 fps when it left the barrel. JFK's greatly tightened back muscles would have contributed to the bullet's shallow penetration. As many researchers have noted, a number of witnesses commented that one of the shots sounded noticeably different from the others. This could have been a short shot. One thing that is crystal clear from the ARRB releases is that the autopsy doctors positively, absolutely determined via prolonged probing and body manipulation that the back wound had no exit point and that the bullet did not penetrate the pleural cavity. This, of course, is why one of the drafts of the autopsy report said that the throat wound was made by an exiting fragment from the head shot.

Aguilar believes that the autopsy brain photos do not show JFK's brain but someone else's brain. He believes that the autopsy back-of-head photos do now show the true condition and appearance of JFK's head during the autopsy. As you surely should know, Doug Horne argues that the back-of-head autopsy photos are authentic but that they were taken after the skull had been reconstructed, and that autopsy photos that showed the large right-rear head wound were suppressed. I have tried several times to get you to show us how a bullet could have entered at the EOP site without tearing through the right-rear occipital lobe and especially without tearing through the cerebellum. Initially, you told me that your book explained this problem, but when I confronted you with the fact that your book does no such thing, you said you could show a path from the EOP site that would miss the cerebellum, but so far you have declined to verify this assertion. The only way any EOP-site bullet fired from above the horizontal plane could have had any chance of missing the cerebellum would have been if it entered the skull at an incredibly sharp downward angle, something around 65 or 70 degrees, which we both know is ridiculous and impossible (unless the gunman fired from a helicopter hovering high above the TSBD).

What about the several items of evidence that corroborate the datebook? In other threads, Leslie has established that several entries in the datebook have been remarkably corroborated by other evidence. The DPD dictabelt recording is hard evidence that at least four shots were fired and that one of them came from the knoll (LINK, LINK). A frame of the Wiegman film shows a puff of smoke hanging by some trees on the grassy knoll, in the same area where Holland and other witnesses said they saw apparent gun smoke.

Yes, I address the possibility that the cartridge case had already been used and was then hand loaded. As I discuss in that chapter, Chris Mills discovered that a similar dent could be made by loading an empty cartridge.

So what you're saying is that all those witnesses were either legally blind or blitheringly incompetent, that they somehow could not tell the difference between a large wound above such an obvious reference point as the right ear and a wound 3-4 inches farther back on the head that included a sizable portion of the occiput. Such a specious argument begs many questions, such as, How could the nurses who actually cleaned the wound and packed it with gauze have mistaken a wound above the right ear for a wound that included a sizable part of the occiput? How could they have failed to see a large wound above the right ear? How could Tom Robinson, the mortician who "worked right over the President for 3 hours" and who witnessed the reconstruction of the skull, have missed a large wound above the right ear and have seen an orange-sized hole in the back of the head ("about the size of a large orange")? Was he hallucinating when he saw a piece of rubber placed inside "the open wound in the back of the head, so that the embalming fluid would not leak" and that the piece of rubber was custom cut so that it was "slightly larger than the hole in the back of the head"? (ARRB Meeting Report, 6/21/96) Was the other mortician, John Von Hausen, likewise either legally blind or shockingly incompetent when he said there was an area of missing scalp or bone "in the centerline of the back of the head"? (ARRB Meeting Report, 9/25/96--the area was eventually covered with a piece of plastic) How in the world could he have mistaken an area above the right ear for "the centerline of the back of the head"? How could Dr. Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon, who examined the head wound, have missed a large wound above the right ear, have seen a large "right occipital-parietal" wound instead, and even have seen considerable damage to the cerebellum, keeping in mind that the cerebellum is located at the bottom of the occiput and looks very different from other brain tissue? Was Clint Hill just delusional all three times he saw the head wound? All three? Even when he went to the morgue hours after the shooting for the express purpose of viewing JFK's wounds? When Hill was lying on the back hood of the limo and staring straight at JFK's head for several minutes from 2-3 feet away, how in the world could he have mistaken a large wound above the right ear for a large wound in the "right rear side"? Not even a child would describe a wound above the right ear as "the right rear side." When Aubrey Rike was holding the back side of JFK's head in his hands while helping to place the body in the casket and felt the jagged edges of the back-of-head wound, how in the world could he have been feeling a wound above the right ear?

So you answer the Hill, Rike, and nurses accounts with this? Anyway, one clear sign that the head-shot frames have been altered is the fact that the bloody spray disappears far too quickly, in only 2-3 frames, whereas ballistics tests have proved that it should have remained visible for at least six frames. Another clear indication of fraud in the head-shot frames is that no bloody spray is seen going backward, yet we know that blood and brain were splattered "all over" the follow-up car's windshield and on the windshields of the two left-side patrolmen.

But most of the Bethesda witnesses likewise saw a large right-rear head wound. Post-mortem alteration added a large wound above the right ear, but many Bethesda witnesses saw--and some even diagrammed--a large back-of-head wound. One of those witnesses was Clint Hill, who was brought to the morgue for the express purpose of viewing and recording JFK's wounds. Hill had already gotten a long, up-close look at JFK's head wound while he rode on the limo's rear hood on the way to Parkland Hospital. He observed JFK's head wound for several minutes from 2-3 feet away during that trip. He also saw the head wound in the Parkland ER. Then, he saw it at Bethesda. After seeing the head wound three times, he wrote a report and said the large wound was in the right-rear part of the head. Aubrey Rike helped place JFK's body into the casket in Dallas. He was holding the back of JFK's head. He vividly recalled feeling the sharp edges of the back-of-head wound. He said the edges were so sharp they almost cut his hands. The two Parkland nurses who prepared JFK's body for the casket held JFK's head in their hands while they packed the head wound with gauze and wrapped the head in a sheet. They both said the wound was in the rear part of the skull. I find it impossible, incredible, and illogical to dismiss such specific, mutually corroborating eyewitness testimony based on autopsy photos that even Dr. Finck expressed doubts about.

They do not let the evidence dictate their findings. They ignore most of the evidence and focus on a very small molehill of contrary evidence. You folks and Pat still have offered no reasonable, logical, credible explanation for the OD measurements of the skull x-rays, for the virtually undamaged cerebellum and the undamaged right-rear occipital lobe vs. the EOP entry site, for the virtually complete brain seen in the autopsy brain photos vs. the numerous accounts of a large amount of missing brain tissue and the splattering of brain matter on 16 surfaces, for the multiple accounts that during the autopsy the pathologists determined beyond any doubt via prolonged probing and body manipulation that the back wound had no exit point, for the low fragment trail described in the autopsy report but not seen on the skull x-rays, etc., etc., etc.

I think this argument is both delusional and strawman in nature. It is unreasonable to assume that the plotters believed there was absolutely, positively no chance whatsoever that the medical evidence would ever be seen by the public. This would have been an unwise, risky assumption. Surely at least some of the plotters were smart enough to realize that some evidence might be leaked, or that a future Congress or White House might release some/most/all of the evidence earlier than expected, or that a panel of experts might be appointed to review the autopsy materials (as happened when the Clark Panel was formed in 1968). History and logic tell us that the plotters would have hedged their bets and would have altered key evidence, just in case of leaks or the early release of evidence or a review by an expert panel. The 6.5 mm object and the white patch may well have been added to the skull x-rays shortly before the Clark Panel reviewed the autopsy materials. To all but the willfully blind, an act of forgery was clearly being contemplated in the highly suspicious 11/23/63 episode when Ebersole ordered Custer to tape bullet fragments to skull bones and then x-ray them with the same x-ray machine and at the same distance that Custer used the night before during the autopsy. And, again, no one says that the forgeries and alterations were always done perfectly. No one says that the plotters were always super smart and never made mistakes or overlooked issues. Your writings have proved to be a gigantic gift to WC apologists. They have relied heavily on your vacuous rejection of the historic OD evidence, your dismissal of the massive accounts of a right-rear head wound, and your surreal (and really inexcusable) defense of the authenticity of the autopsy brain photos.

Leslie, I read the linked article. It doesn't say whether the confession was recorded in any way or if Pugibet wrote it down before he died. Do you by chance know if it was recorded or if Pugibet wrote it down?

Yes, indeed. I get wary anytime I see an author insist that "only" this or that group was behind the assassination and that all other suspects are red herrings, false leads, etc. I have no problem when someone opines that the Mafia or the CIA was the main force behind the plot, as long as they don't insist that no other groups/elements were involved.

Thanks. I had a book published on the JFK case way back in 1996. It was titled Compelling Evidence and was published by JFK Lancer. I wrote another book in 2002, Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed--A Reply to Gerald Posner's Book Case Closed, but I merely posted it on my JFK website and made no effort to publish it in paper form. FWIW, Dr. David Mantik has read my new book and says it "looks great."

You rely on a handful of the Parkland medical personnel because they agree with your position, but you ignore all the rest who do not. You also ignore the non-medical witnesses, such as Clint Hill, who got an up-close, prolonged look at the large head wound three times. You ignore all the autopsy witnesses who said there was a large right-rear defect, and you rely on the few autopsy witnesses who went along with the autopsy photos. Incredibly, you even argue that the autopsy brain photos are authentic, even though they show only 1-2 ounces of missing brain matter, a virtually undamaged cerebellum (yet Finck said there was "extensive damage" to the cerebellum), and an undamaged right-rear occipital lobe (a physical impossibility unless the EOP bullet entered at a downward angle of about 65 degrees). WC apologists frequently cite your rejection of the large right-rear defect and your rejection of the historic OD evidence of the alteration of the autopsy skull x-rays. I can't count how many times in other forums I've had WC defenders cite your arguments on the medical evidence. Your conspiracy theory is so watered down, so heavily qualified, and so convoluted that it's almost as problematic as the lone-gunman theory.

One thing that jumps out at me is his statement on Amazon where he says that claims of Mafia and CIA involvement are "red herrings." That right there makes me wonder about the book's value and the guy's research. If there were a Kindle version, I might buy one of the volumes to check it out, but he's only offering it as a hardback. Amazon.com: Under Cover of Night: The United States Air Force and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy: 9798218283506: Fetter, Sean

Yeap. Yet, according to WC believers, Dodd, Holland, Price, Officer Smith, Harkness, etc., were either "mistaken" or lying.

I don't think I could add anything to Rothmiller and Thompson's book.

Thank you.

Indeed, Robbie and I have been trying to find a mutually convenient time to do another interview for the last two weeks. Our schedules are not very conducive right now.

That is exactly Pat's position. He and I have discussed the issue of fake evidence at great length. He dismisses the incredibly important and historic OD evidence, believes that all the autopsy photos are pristine, etc., etc.

You keep cherry-picking a small part of NSAM 263 and ignoring the parts that contradict your fringe spin. You also ignore the background documents on which the NSAM was based. "Unrelated utterances"??? You mean firsthand statements by JFK himself and by Bobby? "Unrelated"??? NSAM 263 and its background docs unmistakably describe a conditional, gradual withdrawal whose chief objective was victory in South Vietnam. The NSAM actually states that all actions should be judged on whether they support this objective: It remains the central object of the United States in South Vietnam to assist the people and Government of that country to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy. The test of all decisions and U.S. actions in this area should be the effectiveness of their contributions to this purpose. I mean, I don't know how much clearer language could be. But you guys ignore this and cherry-pick a small part of the NSAM to support the myth that JFK was going to completely withdraw from South Vietnam after the election, even if this enabled the Communists to win. You can't get more unconditional than that. How many years did Galbraith repeatedly make the claim that the withdrawal was to be "complete" and was "unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it"? Huh? In JFK Revisited, Newman, inexcusably relying on McNamara's fraudulent "secret debrief," says JFK was determined to pull out of Vietnam even if this led to a Communist victory. Again, you can't get more unconditional than that. There's a reason that even the vast majority of liberal historians reject your fringe spin on JFK's withdrawal. Like Chomsky, they've looked at all the same evidence that you have, and they realize that it does not say what you claim it says. Huh??? I'm almost tempted to ask if you meant to reply to a different Michael, because I have never argued that JFK did not intend to reduce our military forces in South Vietnam. My point, which I think I've made as clearly as something can be stated, is that JFK intended to proceed with the gradual withdrawal plan only if it did not harm the war effort, only if conditions on the ground were favorable enough that the withdrawal would not endanger the goal of defeating the Communist assault on South Vietnam. I suggest you read my opening post and my last four or five replies.