I am satisfied the JFKA has been solved

[Tom Graves]

[There were] closely spaced shots on JFK and JBC.

If you mean the Single Bullet Theory is incorrect, you're wrong.

[Benjamin Cole]

If you mean the Single Bullet Theory is incorrect, you're wrong.

Well! In that case, I am wrong!

But I still regard Putin as pig-monkey, along with his pal The Ayatollah.

[Tom Graves]

Well! In that case, I am wrong!

But I still regard Putin as pig-monkey, along with his pal The Ayatollah.

I'm very proud of you.

[Benjamin Cole]

I'm very proud of you.

For a long, long time, the SBT'ers have said the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling, and that was proof it had first passed through JFKs throat.

JBC had a large scar on his back, and that was proof of his being hid by a slug "sideways" to his body.

You assent to that aspect of SBT?

[Paul May]

I think I have finished my JFKA-related studies with Gus Russo’s books Live by the Sword and Brothers in Arms. I’m surprised Russo’s work doesn’t seem to get more attention. Probably because it is too solid, makes too much sense, and is such a killer for more elaborate and sexy conspiracy theories, I would guess.

I am satisfied that Russo’s work is the answer to the JFKA in the sense that (1) Oswald, a lone assassin, had a much stronger pro-Castro anti-JFK motive, long before 11-22-63, than I had previously appreciated, or (2) Oswald, a lone assassin, actually conspired in at least some loose sense with pro-Castro operatives, potentially including ones with a direct connection to Castro himself. The “cover-up” at every level, from LBJ, RFK, the CIA and the Warren Commission on down, was a cover up of the exceedingly dangerous Cuban Connection. My guess is that #2 is closer to the truth than #1 but that we will never have a definitive answer. (No, I do not believe the KGB was a factor at all - at all.)

I am also satisfied that other theories, while undoubtedly sexier, more fun and having more potential for those with ideological agendas, are just mental masturbation and a waste of time. I, at least, am done with debating them or attempting to expose their fallacies. Those who promote them, here as elsewhere are, IMHO, mentally ill. Not just conspiracy prone, but mentally ill. There is a point at which craziness cannot be excused on the basis of a mere propensity toward conspiracy thinking.

This is quite old (which is why it must be accessed via the Wayback Machine), but it is Russo’s scathing and quite humorous takedown of Jim DiEugenio and his ilk: https://web.archive.org/web/20001202105700/http://www.jfkfiles.com/archives/html/feat.htm. The apoplectic venom that DiEugenio spews at Russo is not a major factor in my conclusion that Russo has pretty well solved the case, but it doesn’t hurt. (It’s interesting that the Spartacus site quotes extensively from the above-linked piece but completely disguises that it’s a scathing, highly personal takedown of DiEugenio.)

Russo, a major part of the PBS Frontline piece on Oswald, makes clear that he and the others were given free rein and a near-unlimited budget to explore every conspiracy angle that struck their fantasy. In connection with that piece and thereafter, Russo did an astounding amount of actual, on-the-ground research in the preparation of his books. I was reminded of what forensic investigative historian Peter Vronksy told me years ago – i.e., he went to Russia fully expecting to make a documentary that blew the Warren Report wide open and came back concluding the Warren Commission “basically got things right” (with the exception, Russo would say, of willfully avoiding the Cuban Angle): http://russianbooks.org/oswald-in-russia.htm.

Anyway, I’m done. It’s kind of ironic that I was planning to exit the JFKA Follies anyway but happened to encounter right at the end the research that I believe puts the nail in the coffin of those Follies. I’m sure Russo’s work has some warts and errors, but as a whole I believe it provides The Answer in a way that makes sense from every perspective. I’ve already seen some of Griffith’s and DiEugenio’s critiques of Russo and can only say that, IMHO, these folks are mentally ill. For some reason, they cannot even live with a highly plausible, evidence-based conspiracy that doesn’t fit their foaming-at-the-mouth ideological agenda. In any event, I guess I will exit the JFKA as at least a “sorta kinda” CTer who tends to think Oswald’s pro-Castro anti-JFK hysteria was probably ratcheted up and actively encouraged by others in New Orleans and/or Mexico City. This actually does make more sense than the standard LN scenario of a last-minute, go-home-the-night-before-and-get-my-clunky-Carcano decision. I am still left with the puzzles as to why Oswald didn’t acquire a better weapon before 11-22-63 and what was actually in the “curtain rods” package. (Was he clever enough to go to the Paine garage and get curtain rods as a cover just in case someone heard or saw him assembling the Carcano?)

Carry on. (I would note that I have observed the curious phenomenon that both this forum and the Other One seem to be solidly in the grip of tedious characters who have taken lessons in "How to Kill an Internet Forum." Anyone who had anything non-insane and more-or-less substantive to contribute seems to be gone. Is this just coincidence or, as I suspect, are the JFKA Follies finally just running out of gas?)

Totally support this assessment and have for years. It’s why I no longer post. What’s the point? Griffith and his lunacy will be here until he dies.

[Tom Graves]

For a long, long time, the SBT'ers have said the bullet that struck JBC was tumbling, and that was proof it had first passed through JFKs throat.

JBC had a large scar on his back, and that was proof of his being hid by a slug "sideways" to his body.

You assent to that aspect of SBT?

IIRC, it was eventually determined that the original measurement of the entry wound in JBC's back was too long because it was taken after the wound had been debrided, but the correct adjusted measurement still determined that the wound was oblong in shape.

Are you going to argue that its oblong-ness was the same as the entry wound to JFK's skull as determined by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck at autopsy and therefore proves that the oblong-ness of both wounds was simply due to the angle of incidence?

Regardless, if JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets, where did the bullet that exited JFK's throat end up?

Or do you think the wound to his throat was an entrance wound?

(LOL)

[Benjamin Cole]

IIRC, it was eventually determined that the original measurement of the entry wound in JBC's back was too long because it was taken after the wound had been debrided, but the correct adjusted measurement still determined that the wound was oblong in shape.

Are you going to argue that its oblong-ness was the same as the entry wound to JFK's skull as determined by Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck at autopsy and therefore proves that the oblong-ness of both wounds was simply due to the angle of incidence?

Regardless, if JFK and JBC were hit by different bullets, where did the bullet that exited JFK's throat end up?

Or do you think the wound to his throat was an entrance wound?

(LOL)

TG-

I agree with JBCs surgeon Robert Shaw, who had worked on 700 WWII gunshot victims: JBC was likely shot by an unimpeded bullet from above and behind.

And that the projectile that penetrated JBC's wrist, from the dorsal side, is difficult to explain as a shot that first passed through JBC's chest.

But as I always say, caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.

And Putin and Hamas are pig-monkeys extraordinaire.