TG--

If what you and John Newman suspect is true about Solie, then Solie is the perfect candidate to leak info to Garrison...that Garrison would naturally believe, given the source.

Somebody inside the CIA leaked to Garrison that Shaw had a history with the CIA.

The KGB "CIA perped the JFKA" narrative in full flower.

In fact, Shaw was possibly monitoring LHO in New Orleans, just as de Mohrenschildt had in Dallas (although De M. may have been a double agent).

My experience is AI can be a useful tool for finding facts although even those should be verified. I don't trust it to analyze factual information. That requires real intelligence, not artificial. AI only know what it has been told and it gets told a lot of 

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

Well said.

I sliced it the way that I sliced it. Please read it again. Ford did not change the location of the entry wound. He did not move it by as much as a mm in any direction.

Surely you're joking. "Please read it again"? What don't you understand here? You can read it a thousand times, and it's still going to read that Ford replaced "at a point slightly below the shoulder" with "the back of his neck."

Sheesh, even Google AI says that Ford changed the wound's description so that it would "better align" with the single-bullet theory:

Gerald Ford successfully pushed the Warren Commission to change the written description of President John F. Kennedy's back wound from the upper back to the base of the neck to better align with the single-bullet theory. (Google "gerald ford's alteration of the description of jfk's back wound")

I was surprised by this acknowledgment because Google AI usually gives answers that are pro-WC.

And surely you can't look at the autopsy photo of the back wound and claim with a straight face that it shows the wound in "the back of his neck" where Humes put it in his drawing for the WC, can you? The HSCA FPP concluded the photo puts the wound at T1, which is a good 2 inches lower than where Humes placed it in his WC drawing. Indeed, the FPP said they placed the wound "in the back area" and "a few inches lower" than where Humes put it in his drawing:

The panel also places the entrance perforation on the lower, in the back area, a few inches lower than illustrated in this drawing. (1 HSCA 256)

He recommended a change in the wording of the draft report. He did not unilaterally change that wording. His recommendation was valid. Humes et al said that the wound was in the low neck. I'm not interested in defending Ford. I didn't particularly care for him. My interest is for historical accuracy. Your issue is with Humes et al. You may be right. The bullet may not have entered the back of the neck. I usually argue that it did but I don't need it to have. The bullet traversed downward through Kennedy and exited his throat. It honestly makes no difference to me if it entered at the level of C7 or T1.

But Humes's wound diagram for the WC put the wound at C3 or C4, not C7. He put the wound noticeably above the throat wound, as we see in CE 385. Humes had to put the back wound above the throat because he and the WC claimed the bullet traveled a "downward path" from the back wound to the throat wound, a piece of pure fiction that even the HSCA FPP rejected.

A bullet entering at C7 would have struck barely level with or slightly below the throat wound. A bullet entering at T1 would have struck at least 1/3 of an inch below the throat wound, which is one reason the HSCA FPP said the bullet hit the back at an upward angle and that it tunneled upward, a fact that Dr. Werner Spitz had confirmed for the Rockefeller Commission three years earlier:

There is no doubt that the bullet which struck the President’s back penetrated the skin in a sharply upward direction, as is evident from the width of the abrasion at the lower half of the bullet wound of entrance. The term "sharply upward direction" is used because it is evident from this injury that the missile traveled upwards within the body. (Report of Werner Spitz, 4/24/75, p. 1, Rockefeller Commission papers, see https://websites.umich.edu/~ahaq/correspondence.pdf)

This is why the FPP had to assume that JFK was leaning so far forward as to be nearly doubled over when the bullet struck, as Dr. Baden was nice enough to demonstrate in front of TV cameras.

Also, we know the back wound was actually at T3, as documented in the death certificate (marked "verified") and on the autopsy face sheet (also marked "verified"), and as confirmed by the hard physical evidence of the rear JFK clothing holes.

Sibert and O'Neill insisted the back wound was well below the throat wound and could not have exited the throat.

A careful look at the autopsy photo of the back wound shows the photo is consistent with the T3 location, when you take into account the fact that the head is tilted substantially backward, so much so that two lines of folded skin can be seen on the upper part of the neck just below the hairline. With those two lines of folded skin unfolded, the wound could very well be at T3 or more than halfway between T2 and T3.

"JFK's Clothing Proves the Single-Bullet Theory Is Impossible"

"Where Was President Kennedy's Back Wound?"

I think maybe it would be more accurate to say the BASE of the neck. It still looks lower than that to me but I’m just a layman