TG--

I have mixed sentiments towards Garrison.

I suspect someone inside the CIA was feeding Garrison info, and he believed it. That someone may have been Bruce Solie, or someone manipulated by Solie.

Despite the contention of some, the CIA historian, in a written report presented to the CIA Director, said that Clay Shaw had been a highly paid contract source for the CIA in the 1950s. I accept the CIA historian's description of Shaw. To make multiple typos in the most important sentence in the report regarding Shaw...well, a dwindling long shot.

Was Solie part of the KGB propaganda wars, and did he turn Garrison to his advantage? Maybe.

On Niedernut, are you asking if he was financed from offshore? Or just another rigid far-leftie?

So many lefties actively, even compulsively, embrace all anti-US, or anti-Israel narratives, and so rigidly that, yes, one often wonders if they were basically hired to do so.

Who knows about Niedernut? He all but neurotically described LNT'ers as CIA assets, and banned participants who disagreed with his views on the RFKA (I was one).

I see Andrew Iler has done some housecleaning at the EF-JFKA. Still, the crackpots are in force.

You can slice it any way you want, the fact is the bullet did not enter the back of JFK's neck and Ford opened up a can of worms by suggesting it be described that way. That's simply wrong.

All Ford did was clarify and more accurately reflect the same description that was used in the autopsy report.

Autopsy report


Ford's correction


JohnM

On 29 October 2024, Niederhut started a thread titled "Jim Garrison -- A Truly Great American Hero" at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate - Education Forum by posting the following:

The city of New Orleans should erect a statue of Jim Garrison in front of the courthouse where the Clay Shaw trial occurred. I finally read Garrison's 1988 classic book this week, On the Trail of the Assassins, which I neglected to read after I belatedly got interested in the JFK assassination a few years ago.  I'm probably the only forum member who hadn't read this classic. It's a masterpiece. It's true that Clay Shaw evaded conviction, partly by lying about his Clay Bertrand alias, his affiliation with the CIA, and his well-documented association with David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald. Nevertheless, the jurors correctly concluded (per Mark Lane) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy. The book describes, quite cogently, the lengths to which the Federal government went to sabotage Garrison's investigation, and to smear him in the mainstream media. Among other details, I had never read about Garrison's bizarre encounter with NBC attorneys and Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show. Garrison was a WWII veteran, and former FBI agent, who did a good job of describing his own initial naivete and later disillusionment in the process of discovering the complicity of the CIA, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department in the assassination cover up. I was surprised to learn that Garrison had never doubted the integrity or accuracy of the Warren Commission Report for three years after JFK's murder. He only began to read the WCR after Senator Russell Long told him it was a fraud. My advice to forum Newcomers is to avoid my mistake and read this classic early on in your explorations of JFKA history.  It's an excellent companion text to Oliver Stone's classic 1992 film, JFK.

. . . . . . .

One thing Niederhut forgot to mention is that Garrison lied in On the Trail of the Assassins when he wrote that he didn't read the 4 March 1967 article in a Communist-owned Italian newspaper, "Paese Sera" (or a knock-off article published in a far-left French newspaper), about Clay Shaw's alleged involvement with the "fascistic CIA" in Italy until after the 1969 Clay Shaw trial, which article persuaded the overly ambitious, scandal-plagued, and revengeful DA to change his theory against Shaw from "He masterminded a Loeb-and-Leopold homosexual thrill-kill assassination of JFK!!!" to "He organized it for the evil, evil, evil CIA!!!"

The back of the NECK?  Does any JFK autopsy photo show an entrance wound on the back of JFKs NECK?
If so, please post that photo.

That bullet went on one wild ride. Pat yourself on the back, seriously, that is bone/plate.
Look at the autopsy picture with the ruler - that wound is not in the neck.

CE-399 would have to go thru skin at the side of the esophagus/throat  to continue on and do all the damage it did.
It has to go thru the neck without hitting any bone or cartilage to maintain the speed. The so called "exit wound" looks centered in front.

Young's story has "false memory" written all over it.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/false-memories-5225965

The interview where he gave his account took place 38 years after the assassination. Lots of time for false memories to take hold, especially if he began with the assumption that a bullet was in the envelope the NCOs picked up. The bent bullet he describes sounds very much like CE399. It's easy to see how he could have conflated a picture he saw of CE399 with a bullet he assumed had been in the envelope given to Humes. Humes made no mention of receiving a bullet or a fragment during the autopsy. Ford knew nothing about this. There is no corroboration for Young's story. Martinell had died. The only source for Mills remembering seeing a bullet is Young himself. That's hardly corroboration. Can you quote one person, other than Young himself, who said Humes was given a recovered bullet in addition to the skull fragments?

You didn't even attempt to explain why if the Secret Service had recovered a whole bullet in addition to the fragmented bullet, that they would turn over the whole bullet and keep the fragmented bullet. It makes no sense. Nothing about this story makes sense.

The only thing worse than witness testimony is 40 year old witness testimony. Griffith goes on endlessly with this type of crap.