Michael Griffith
-
Posts
1,743 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Griffith
-
-
Mary Haverstick's background should cause any serious researcher to give her a fair hearing. She is a successful film director and writer. She has directed four movies, including the 2008 movie Home starring Oscar winner Marcia Harden and the 2018 movie The Last Horsemen of New York starring Oscar winner Liam Neeson.
Another thing that makes her JFK research worth a fair hearing is that she had no interest in the JFK case for most of her life and only became interested in the case accidentally as a result of her work on another subject.
-
On 2/14/2023 at 6:21 PM, Bill Brown said:
This is the first portion of a debate I did with Matt Douthit a couple years ago. More to come.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/4798726/mysteries-in-the-music-case-closed
I stopped listening when I heard the nonsensical claim that Tippit was shot at 1:14 or 1:15. This is not a serious argument. Given all that we now know about the case, the argument is inexcusable. It is a specious, forced argument that ignores the clear weight of the evidence. It is based on a refusal to admit that Oswald simply could not have gotten to 10th and Patton on foot in time to shoot Tippit.
When Mrs. Roberts looked out the window of the rooming house a short time after Oswald left the house, she saw him standing near the street.
Myers says the shooting occurred at 1:14:30. A very brisk pace would have put Oswald at the Tippit scene at 1:14, if we assume he began his speed walk at 1:04 and right after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the street; but that would not have left enough time for him to walk past 10th and Patton, spin around, start walking the other way, get stopped by Tippit, have a "friendly chat" with Tippit (per Markham), wait while Tippit got out of the car, and then shoot Tippit. And note, again, that this whole scenario assumes that Oswald suddenly started his alleged sprint-walk right after Mrs. Roberts saw him standing near the road.
Mrs. Markham said that she left her apartment building at 1:04, that it would have taken her about 2 minutes to walk from her apartment building to the Tippit scene, that she walked to her bus stop every day, and that she had a routine of leaving at 1:00 to catch her bus. Myers would have us believe that Markham erred substantially, by 7 minutes, in her recollection of when she left her apartment building, even though she noted that as she was leaving she glanced at the clock in the laundry room of her apartment building and that the clock read 1:04. Nonetheless, Myers argues that Mrs. Markham was mistaken. Yes, of course.
And then there is Domingo Benavides. The standard lone-gunman explanation is that Benavides waited in his truck only for a matter of seconds and not for a few minutes. But this flies in the face of common sense, not to mention that it ignores what Benavides himself initially said, which was that he waited in his truck for "a few minutes." If you were only 25-50 feet away from a shooting and feared you could be the next target, how long would you wait until coming out into the open again?
Understandably, and by all accounts, Benavides was scared to death by the shooting. He told the WC he waited in his truck "a few minutes" after he heard the shots. According to fellow witness Ted Calloway, Benavides told him the day after the shooting that,
When I heard that shooting, I fell down into the floorboard of my truck and I stayed there. It scared me to death. (p. 220)
Years later, Benavides changed his story and told CBS he only waited a few seconds, not a few minutes. Predictably, Myers chooses to accept Benavides' belated change of story and rejects his original statements (pp. 86-87).
Clearly, Benavides did in fact wait in his truck for a minute or two after the shots rang out, and the case against Oswald collapses, unless one is willing to assume some unknown person gave Oswald a ride to the Tippit shooting scene. Myers is willing to speculate that this might have happened, suggesting that a person who gave Oswald a ride would not have come forward to tell about it because he would have been too embarrassed (p. 352). But why would Oswald have wanted to be dropped off at 10th and Patton?
-
9 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
So let's see .... June Cobb was actually a secret government agent/assassin named "Jerrie Cobb" and not only was she the getaway pilot at Redbird Airport but also the real Babushka Lady, who may or may not have fired bullets at the motorcade from the grass opposite the knoll?
Says the guy who still swallows the single-bullet theory and the lone-assassin tale. Did you even read the article or just skim over it? Or did you even open the link? Something suspicious was obviously going on at Redbird Airport, and your side waves aside the Babushka Lady with bland dismissals.
It doesn't help matters that we still have some conspiracy theorists who continue to peddle Beverly Oliver's claim that she was the Babushka Lady.
Naturally, you assume Mary Haverstick is lying or that Cobb lied to her about being the pilot of the plane that was idling on the runway at Redbird that day.
-
13 hours ago, Robin Finn said:
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/friend-secret-cia-agent-think-190000508.html?
How does ridiculous stuff like this get published?
After reading the article and the write-up about Haverstick's book on Amazon, I am not prepared to summarily dismiss her claims. At first glance, Haverstick strikes me as sincere and credible, and the intriguing references to a Ms. Cobb in released documents make me want to learn more about Haverstick's claims. I just bought the audible version of her book and will give it a listen. I might very well change my mind after I listen to the book, but for now I feel inclined to learn more about Haverstick's claims.
-
On 11/15/2023 at 9:44 AM, Alan Ford said:
It's quite an eyebrow-raiser.
Two things leap out in particular:
1. On the morning of 11/22, Mr. Jones says he saw unfamiliar men in the building whom he took to be (non-uniformed) Secret Service men. His assumption was that they were checking the building out ahead of the P. Parade.
2. That same morning (hours before the motorcade), Mr. Jones encountered Mr. Lee Harvey Oswald on the front ('passenger') elevator. Mr. Oswald got off on (according to Mr. Jones' best recollection) the third floor. Mr. Oswald was carrying a box about this wide-------------
and this deep-------------
The box was (to use Mr. Jones' own word:) "tall". (Mr. Jones afterwards wondered if it might not have contained the rifle.)
------------------
With regard to #2 above, cf (perhaps) this information given to the HSCA in 1977 by Mrs. Mary Hall, who had worked on the fifth floor of the Dal-Tex building:
Did Mr. Oswald that morning receive delivery of something necessary to that day's planned activities, and take it upstairs somewhere?
The presence of unfamiliar men in the TSBD that morning is revealing and important. This is an angle that should have been discovered and thoroughly explored by local authorities and then by the WC.
-
On 11/17/2023 at 4:12 PM, Vince Palamara said:
Hi, Michael! The book arrived today. I cannot wait to read it. Thanks also for including me in it!
Thanks, Vince.
And thank you for all the great work you've done on the Secret Service angle.
-
2 hours ago, Karl Kinaski said:
Was President JFK Really Killed by the CIA
Topics
- 1963 Cuba Daniel - Castro interview ...
- 1961 Lemnitzer and Northwoods ...
- Bay of Bigs ... "Kennedy later told friends that the Bay of Bigs was a trap ...
- 1962 Mansfield fact finding mission to Vietnam. Mansfield: "War in Vietnam would be a mistake."
- Change of Vietnam policy after JFKA
- Khrushchev Kennedy letters ...
- Missile crisis Kennedy in danger to give in to the military plans to invade Cuba ... "Against my will."
- JFK Speech June 10th 1963 ...
- JFK TV speech on the nuclear test ban agreement, July 25th 1963 ...
- NSAM 263
- CIA Murder--Manual
- Oswald arriving in the american embassy in Moscow (they got the year wrong.)
- Snyder not asked a single question about Oswalds ties to U2 programm by the Warren Commission
- Naggs Head agent training
- Oswald roommate Jim Botelho: "Oswald's whole communist thing was a total lie, a pretense ... I was sure that Oswald was on an intelligence Operation in russia."
- Mohrenschild, James Walton Moore ..
- Angleton ... ( was the head of the CIA's assassination program which he ran with army colonel Boris Bash? ... Bash was famous for "investigating" Oppenheimer ...)
- HSCA interview of Ann Egerter
- Jim Wilcott: "Oswald was an CIA asset
- Richard Case Nagell (was told: Kill Oswald or convince him that he was being set up to become a patsy.) 1995 Death of Nagell when AARB contacted him ...
- Thomas Arthur Vallee ... the Chicago plot ...
- Treatment of Abraham Bolden ...
- 1995 All records of the Chicago plot destroyed ...
- The Oswald impsters
- Witness Wayne January: Red bird incident Nov. 20. 1963 ..
- Rose Charmaine ... exhumation of her boy wanted by Garrison but denied ..
- Julia Ann Mercer ... her altered testimony
- Prouty: Sloppy protection in Dallas ...
- Roger Craig ..
- Paine not owning a Rambler but a Chevy Bell air ...
- Harper Fragment ... (he found it on 24th of November, not the 22th as claimed in the clip)
- Tippit shooting (clip claims shooting at 1.15min pm ... maybe it was at 1.06 pm ...)
- Brewer: the two Oswalds, Boroughs, Postal ... Bernard J. Haire ...
- Crenshaw, what he saw and how he was smeared by the MSM ...
- Bruce Pitzer
- Caroline Arnold
One thing: The narrator said phon "Mohrenschlick" instead of "Mohrenschild" ...
- Oswald Baker Truly encounter 8 clip claims 1.5 min after the shooting ... could be 40 seconds after the shooting ...
- Ruby
- Bugliosi's book HELTER SKELTER full of lies not only RECLAIMING HISTORY ...
- Dorothy Kilgallen ...
- GArrison: ruby Mafia asset used by CIA ...
- Grammer: Ruby was trying to foil his own assassination job ...
Clip ends with a question:
The question is: Are YOU now one of those people? (Conspiracy theorists.)
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.
-
On 11/16/2023 at 11:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:
Excellent.
That raises the possibility the hand-loading was underdone, and so we get the shallow JFK back wound and the Landis bullet result.
A plausible scenario.
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.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:
I do think there was an Israeli connection to the assassinations of both JFK and RFK. I think we need to look at both of them together. I do not see these assassinations as being done by Mossad, but though CIA via James Angleton. The goal was to serve the best interests of Israel.
JFK was not gung-ho Israel. He had a balanced viewpoint and wanted reparations for the Palestinians who had lost their homes when Israel was created. He wanted inspections of Dimona, so that Israel would not develop nuclear capability.
JFK, while doing the right thing for both parties, was considered a threat to their agendas for Israel. A presidency by RFK would have been no different...
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.
-
15 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
"Regarding McClelland you said. "and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive".
Dr McClelland doubled down on the main issue in that very same soundbite from the NOVA doc. He stated pulling the scalp up covered the existence of the "large wound" as he simultaneously demonstrated it to be in the occipital parietal. It is the hole that the Warren Commission denied and is somehow missing from the X-rays and photos. Deception has always been the rule for Parkland skeptics when it comes to the occipital parietal wound, but we all know what Dr McClelland's views were.
His opinion offered in the NOVA doc while looking at the back of head photo was an immediate, off the cuff, remark. The fact he ignored the reports of the missing scalp in his attempted explanation is barely worth mention.
The same old tired talking points have been strung together and repackaged so many times and in so many ways that your efforts have become absolutely transparent. The endless repeating of misleading and puffed up arguments have been refuted many times.
SOME EXAMPLES:
McClelland had theorized the scalp may have been pulled up to cover the wound. That has led to another deceptive line to confuse photo alterationists. Paraphrased as: "Even Dr McClelland has said the head photo wasn't photoshopped!" The alterations being led to assume McClelland agreed there was no coverup. When actually he was talking about a literal coverup!. Deceptions like that demonstrate the shaky ground the skeptics stand on. Another well known and misleading generalization is about the doctors recanting their statements. It often ignores the fact that only a few doctors had done so. The additional fact that doctors were being attacked for their views, and had a good reason to 'recant', is more than noteworthy.
Dr Crenshaw was maligned by the highly prestigious medical journal, JAMA. This is a prime example of an attack on Parkland staff . I feel compelled to repeat what so many already know. The JAMA article inferred that Crenshaw may not even have been in the room that day! Imagine what being maligned and called a xxxx by that prestigious journal could do a doctors reputation! Whether retired or in practice, it is very damaging to them and their families. Of course we have doctors who testified under oath to the Warren Commission that he WAS in the room. Doctors Curtis, McClelland, Sayler,and even Baxter(Who was one of the 4 doctors interviewed for that JAMA article.). JAMA was sued and settled out of court. We are left to ask why such provably incorrect claims have been made over the decades?
It is fully apparent to anyone versed on the subject that the skeptics have completely failed to make their case. The repetition of inadequate arguments has served well to highlight the transparency of the deception. That is why I said earlier that the debate has been over for some time. The head wound issue has always been a house of cards for the skeptics. That issue, imo, that has already been brought down.
I'm not saying this to end on a snarky note but the rehashing of the head wound issue has become extremely boring. Repeating it over and over just benefits the skeptics. You all cannot allow the debate to resolve itself, because you have already lost.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).
-
3 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:
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.
-
3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Excellent.
That raises the possibility the hand-loading was underdone, and so we get the shallow JFK back wound and the Landis bullet result.
A plausible scenario.
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.
-
14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
Since you [Sandy Larsen] keep regurgitating Gary's list, riddle me this. Does Gary think the autopsy photos were faked?
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).
-
17 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
Because there's zero hard evidence to support such a claim, including the unverified, unauthenticated "datebook."
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.
-
On 11/14/2023 at 7:58 PM, Benjamin Cole said:
Chap. 17 ---Did you ponder if the dented bullet was as a result of "hand loading"? A re-used cartridge?
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.
-
22 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
So, let me guess .. the massive wound on the right side of the head around the ear seen so clearly seen in the Zapruder film was .. faked?
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?
-
30 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
So, let me guess .. the massive wound on the right side of the head around the ear seen so clearly seen in the Zapruder film was .. faked?
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Sean Coleman said:
Wounds witnessed at Parkland,
Body forcibly illegally removed,
Different wounds witnessed at Bethesda.
Isn’t it that easy? Seems to solve everything…..
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.
-
8 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
People who believe there was no massive alteration of the JFK medical evidence are hardly "holdovers." In fact, they are careful, scrupulous researchers who actually let the evidence dictate the findings, rather than swallowing the usual nonsense hook, line and sinker like so many people on this forum.
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.
-
On 11/9/2023 at 8:44 PM, Pat Speer said:
Now contrast this willful naïveté re the morality of public servants with the bizarre belief among all too many CTs that these same servants are incredibly sneaky, and smart, and willing and able to fake evidence--even evidence the public was never supposed to see.
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.
-
15 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:
Stunning deathbed confession as French man claims to have assassinated JFK — Express.co.uk, by Maia Snow, Maria Ortego
November 13, 2023: '. . . In a staggering deathbed confession, a 60 year mystery has apparently been solved as a French man admitted that he was the 'second gunman' involved in the assassination of President John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963. . . . [Enrique (Henri) Ernesto] Pugibet was the grandson of a Frenchman who made his fortune in Mexico and was the son of a tobacco magnate. He was a self-styled businessman with six children from two marriages. He collaborated with the Nazis during the Occupation in France and then became a spy, a CIA agent recruited by Allan Dulles, the agency's director.
His actions have been the subject of a considerable number of reports and investigations in the intelligence community, both American and French.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1834399/deathbed-confession-jfk-assassination
Enrique Ernesto Pugibet: A Timely Visit to Dallas
by Alan Kent
excerpt (as published in Coup in Dallas . . . )
“A FBI informer,” Allen Wright, alleged that an Ernesto Puijet [sic] “checked into the Stoneleigh Hotel in Dallas on November 19, 1963.” “Puijet” was, according to Wright, a French gunman for hire who was posing as a cattle rancher. Wright asserted that “Pujiet” was in Dallas on November 22, 1963. There does not appear to be an “Ernesto” or “Ernest” Pujiet involved in anything like what we will see that this person of interest is involved with. But “Ernesto Pugibet” fits the description given by Wright very well. (As an aside, I have worked through some of Fensterwald’s notes. He was not a secretarial-quality transcriber)
Pugibet was—like Allen Wright—a person of interest to FBI and CIA. From a documentary study focusing on him, utilizing multiple trusted FBI informants as well as statements from Pugibet himself, we find that he had been a member of the French resistance during the Second World War—as an “anti-communist” he would emphatically declare to investigators, had been a naturalized citizen of Mexico from 1947 on, and had worked for the Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and also the notorious Mexican Federal Security, on the “Communist squad.” While going through the United States—he would say on a mission for the Ministry of Agriculture—in 1959, he was deported from the US after being convicted of a crime “involving moral turpitude.” . . .
We know from a coalescence of evidence that Pierre Lafitte was ensconced in the Stoneleigh Hotel on November 19–20, 1963, conducting meetings and making calls in furtherance of the final stages of the plot that felled President Kennedy. We know that Ilse Skorzeny was there as well, among others who were close to the ongoing plot. I contend that if a man with the lengthy resume of Enrique Ernesto Pugibet; a highly connected criminal who had been directly involved in a political assassination, checked into the Stoneleigh on November 19 and remained through November 22, as alleged by a man who was extremely well-connected himself, and this sequence of events turned out to be coincidental, that the bounds of coincidence would have been stretched almost to the breaking point.
When Allen Wright gave this information to Bernard Fensterwald—years after he had attempted to give it to Jim Garrison—there was no hint of the use of the Stoneleigh as an assassination planning venue in any record that could be accessed. Wright clearly knew something of importance, and Pugibet clearly was involved in some way in the assassination of President Kennedy. . . .
Without dot-connecting ourselves into oblivion, I think that it is reasonable to see a long stretch of military, intelligence, and organized crime figures whose names we recognize: Willoughby, Canon, McWillie, Trafficante, Ruby, et al. Pierre Lafitte moved comfortably in this world, associating with Lansky associates Amleto Battisti y Lora and Paul Mondolini in Cuba, and Santo Trafficante in Florida and Cuba. And Dallas’ Norman Rothman, associated closely with Ernesto Pugibet, was directly centered in this milieu. Pugibet was a foot soldier, and there is much that we don’t know about him, but we can reasonably assert that he played some role in the assassination of JFK, and that we can, at least in a general sense, speak to his derivation; the path to his arrival at the Stoneleigh Hotel at such a critical time in US and world history. His role may have been small, or it may have been larger than we know, but he was there. He played a part in the history we are attempting to gather and set out.
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?
-
12 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:
The book isn't even coming up as available for Australian purchasers. With no preview available on a website, limited purchase options, and his relatively unhelpful Twitter posts, it'll be hard to prioritise purchasing this book for a while.
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.
-
3 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
Congratulations Michael! I didn't know you were writing a book!
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."
-
10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
I am in poor health and probably can't withstand another bs siop job on the medical evidence.
I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos. (Correction:. Jenkins did express some disagreement with the photos but nevertheless insisted that the back of the skull, while shattered, remained beneath the scalp.)
And yet certain people--pretending to stand in support of the Parkland witnesses--continue to push that the back of the head was missing.
It's a red herring, folks. IF people had spent as much time READING and LEARNING as they had pestering old people into confirming their pet theory, the case would have been re-opened decades ago. But we instead ended up in this divide where people sift through the evidence without actually seeing, and claim the very evidence PROVING more than three shots were fired must be fake...because because because...
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.
My Tippit Debate w/Matt Douthit
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Michael Griffith
You are stuck in a time warp, as if it were still the 1960s. One FBI lab report said Oswald's revolver had a defective firing pin and wouldn't even fire a bullet. BuLab concluded “the firing pin would not strike one or more of the cartridges with sufficient force to fire them.”
Speaking of those bullet shells, why didn't they have Poe's markings on them? And why didn't they have any firing-pin indentations on them? Hey? How could Sgt. Hill have mistaken revolver shells for auto shells when auto shells are clearly marked as such? I know, I know: yet another "mistake."
The fact that Tippit was shot several minutes before Oswald could have even speed-walked there is not a "red herring" but an inconvenient fact that you folks will never admit. Thus, you lamely assume that Bowley's watch was severely slow or that he misread it, that Markham couldn't read the clock in her apartment complex's laundry room or that she "misremembered" the time on the clock, and that Benavides only waited a few seconds before coming out of his truck, never mind that he initially said he was scared to death and stayed in his truck for a few minutes (as any sane, sensible person would have done), etc., etc.