New Book on the JFK Assassination

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

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.

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. 

 

 

[Michael Griffith]

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.

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pete Mellor]

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. 

 

[Michael Griffith]

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.

Edited November 17, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Michael Griffith]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

On 11/16/2023 at 9:53 AM, 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.

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.

[S.T. Patrick]

On 11/14/2023 at 8:28 AM, Michael Griffith said:

For those who might be interested, I have published a new book on the JFK assassination. It is titled A Comforting Lie: The Myth that a Lone Gunman Killed President Kennedy. The book is available as a paperback and as a Kindle book on Amazon (LINK). Here is the table of contents:

Congratulations, Michael. I wish you the best.

 

[Vince Palamara]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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.

 

Hi, Michael! The book arrived today. I cannot wait to read it. Thanks also for including me in it!

[Michael Griffith]

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.

[Pete Mellor]

Finished the read today Michael.

A very comprehensive and balanced work.

The medical chapters as well as JFK's Vietnam policies are not really my field of knowledge, so I will look forward to reviews from more experienced researchers on these topics.

It will also be interesting to hear from the WC believers on what they make of this work.

However, I certainly enjoyed the book and recommend its reading.

[Michael Griffith]

12 hours ago, Pete Mellor said:

Finished the read today Michael.

A very comprehensive and balanced work.

The medical chapters as well as JFK's Vietnam policies are not really my field of knowledge, so I will look forward to reviews from more experienced researchers on these topics.

It will also be interesting to hear from the WC believers on what they make of this work.

However, I certainly enjoyed the book and recommend its reading.

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. 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Pete Mellor]

3 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Thank you again for the positive feedback on my book and for recommending it. 

Short review on Amazon.

[Greg Doudna]

On 11/17/2023 at 10:47 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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.

Michael, on the back wound coming from a ricochet from a bullet hitting the street behind the limo and bouncing up into JFK’s back, that could account for the low velocity and the <2” penetration (per the probe attempts), and would also remove the objection to a short shot, that a short shot would have fallen short and not hit jfk at all (by the ricochet idea that is exactly what happened) … but it raises other issues.

First, it seems unlikely the nose of a ricochet bullet, if so, would look pristine like the nose of CE 399, therefore it won’t work that the Landis claimed bullet find was both from the back AND is CE 399. That’s not necessarily a fatal objection since the Landis story is a currently contested story. 

But second, the entrance wound looks like a whole bullet entering nose first as if it had not ricocheted. If a ricochet would the entry look like that? I suppose that is ambiguous because it could by accident? (True? Is there data showing ricochet bullet entrance wounds looking like the jfk back entrance wound?)

And a third point, you mention the back wound’s “slightly upward trajectory”, but my understanding is the finger and metal probes found what the Sibert and O’Neill FBI report retold as a 45 degree downward trajectory (for ca two inches). I do not recall any physical evidence report for an upward trajectory apart from an indirect reasoning conclusion from the assumption that it came out the front of the throat (through and through), which I believe you reject. Absent that assumption, there is no upward trajectory for the back entrance. 

The only sense I can envision along this line of thinking would be the ricochet striking on the street was sufficiently far enough behind the limo and the speed of the bullet now sufficiently slow that it literally was on the downward “falling” half of an arc when it went into JFK’ss back, after striking and “bouncing” upward off the pavement. In that downward arc the bullet could then go in JFK’s back at about 45 degrees downward (that angle report not well explained otherwise in any case). 

Can it be determined how far back of the JFK limousine a ricochet bullet may actually have hit the street pavement, and how far would be the distance it would take for the bullet to peak and start falling downward again in its “bounce” arc? 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/16/2023 at 7:49 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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.)

Not obvious at all.  Gil Jesus has speculated JFK was trying to cough up the throat bullet.  SSA Glen Bennett wrote that afternoon that he saw JFK hit in the back right before the headshot.  He wasn’t in a position to see a shot circa Z232, as proven by Willis 5 and Altgens 6.

Are we supposed to believe a shooter intended to fire a short load — which would have traveled 90 yards in swirling wind with no appreciable loss of elevation?

Another crock to obfuscate the back wound.

 

Edited November 21, 2023 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

On 11/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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. 

Glen Bennett’s account counterfeits this theory of an early back wound.

On 11/17/2023 at 9:47 AM, Michael Griffith said:

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.

Bennett could not have witnessed an early hit.

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Michael, on the back wound coming from a ricochet from a bullet hitting the street behind the limo and bouncing up into JFK’s back, that could account for the low velocity and the <2” penetration (per the probe attempts), and would also remove the objection to a short shot, that a short shot would have fallen short and not hit jfk at all (by the ricochet idea that is exactly what happened) … but it raises other issues.

First, it seems unlikely the nose of a ricochet bullet, if so, would look pristine like the nose of CE 399, therefore it won’t work that the Landis claimed bullet find was both from the back AND is CE 399. That’s not necessarily a fatal objection since the Landis story is a currently contested story. 

But second, the entrance wound looks like a whole bullet entering nose first as if it had not ricocheted. If a ricochet would the entry look like that? I suppose that is ambiguous because it could by accident? (True? Is there data showing ricochet bullet entrance wounds looking like the jfk back entrance wound?)

And a third point, you mention the back wound’s “slightly upward trajectory”, but my understanding is the finger and metal probes found what the Sibert and O’Neill FBI report retold as a 45 degree downward trajectory (for ca two inches). I do not recall any physical evidence report for an upward trajectory apart from an indirect reasoning conclusion from the assumption that it came out the front of the throat (through and through), which I believe you reject. Absent that assumption, there is no upward trajectory for the back entrance. 

The only sense I can envision along this line of thinking would be the ricochet striking on the street was sufficiently far enough behind the limo and the speed of the bullet now sufficiently slow that it literally was on the downward “falling” half of an arc when it went into JFK’ss back, after striking and “bouncing” upward off the pavement. In that downward arc the bullet could then go in JFK’s back at about 45 degrees downward (that angle report not well explained otherwise in any case). 

Can it be determined how far back of the JFK limousine a ricochet bullet may actually have hit the street pavement, and how far would be the distance it would take for the bullet to peak and start falling downward again in its “bounce” arc? 

Another problem with Griffith’s analysis is the 56 earwitnesses who reported a “bang...bang-bang” shot sequence.  According to Griffith the first two shots were close together.