Regarding Thomas Graves’s comment – the part on the Kennedy assassination and the single bullet theory (SBT) – he is recycling the discredited work of the late John Lattimer, who published in medical journals what were essentially infomercials that escaped peer review.
Even if you have no interest in that case, you might want to know what a difference there is in what primary sources show — versus what someone implies they show.
I have no objection to anyone publishing theories, as long as they include obviously relevant information. But neither Lattimer nor Graves report the well documented details described by Kennedy’s own doctor, or the sworn testimony of other doctors and close witnesses who viewed the wounds directly -– details that contradict the SBT.
They all said JFK’s back wound was BELOW the shoulder (one even said it was low as T3, the third thoracic vertebra) -– and the throat wound was higher.
Based on JFK’s sitting position when first hit, this means that, if a bullet went through Kennedy and out his throat, its path had to slant upward – well above where a bullet had hit Governor Connally, who had been sitting in front of JFK. So that shot had to have come from a location lower than the “sniper’s nest.”
So Lattimer — who, incidentally, was J.Edgar Hoover’s urologist — tried to “prove” JFK’s back wound was HIGHER than it was, at C6, the sixth cervical vertebra.
He based this on a false presentation of how one is supposed to react to a blow at C6 (the “Thorburn reflex”), and a false presentation of how Kennedy reacted when shot. Lattimer published this theory in a journal not known for scientific rigor, and added to the byline the names of a neurosurgeon and a neurologist — colleagues of his.
Since JFK’s movements seemed more voluntary than reflexive, I was puzzled by this article, and called the neurosurgeon, Edward Schlesinger (a friend of a friend) to ask him about it. Schlessinger confessed that neither he nor the neurologist had much to do with the paper, aside from giving Lattimer some informal advice. They hadn’t even read the paper nor seen the Zapruder film
Lattimer also tried to use as proof images that appeared to be bullet fragments but, because similar images were in places far removed from the wound track (e.g. thighs), they were considered artefacts. For more on this, go here.
Graves also recycled Lattimer when it came to the wound on Gov. Connally’s back. To “prove” the bullet had already gone through JFK, Lattimer said the bullet was tumbling, and landed sideways on Connally’s back – leaving a wound that was 3 cm, the exact length of the magic bullet.
Lattimer published a report that said the wound was 3 cm — but didn’t tell his readers that was the size only after surgical enlargement by the surgeon, Robert Shaw, MD. (Vol 6, p 88, Warren Commission Hearings) Shaw testified on four occasions that the wound was only 1.5 x o.6 cm. (Vol 4, pp 104, 107, and Vol 6, pp 85, 86; , Warren Commission Hearings) For more on this particular con, go here.
What did Boswell's / Hume's measurements in the margin of the autopsy diagram say?
Regardless, wasn't the bullet hole in JBC's back oblong in shape, and isn't it true that, as can be seen in the PBS NOVA Special, "Cold Case JFK," the type of bullet that Oswald's short-rifle fired had a tendency to start yawing / tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck?
Mr Graves, Have you no response to why you gave so much demonstrably false information?
Humes was never sure of his script and has to keep changing it to fit official narrative. Regarding the lie about the Connally's wound's size: You now direct out attention to the wound's shape. As if the only explanation for its oval shape means it was tumbling which in turn means it had first gone through JFK. Surgeon's explanation: the bullet entered TANGENTIALLY. And he made it very clear that the tunnel into the body indicated a bullet traveling nose on. As for that NOVA special, it was infested with fraud. Just like Lattimer's infomercials.
"Surgeon's explanation: the bullet entered TANGENTIALLY. And he made it very clear that the tunnel into the body indicated a bullet traveling nose on."
I thought slight tumbling was possible, this is what the surgeon said: The bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7HSCA149) and he noted, "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it." (4WCH116)
But since you thought Gerald Ford knew more about JFK's back wound than the prosector, you may not trust this surgeon either. Maybe you could channel Arlen Specter.
As shown in "Cold Case JFK," round-nosed 6.5mm Carcano rounds fired from a Carcano like Oswald's have a strong tendency to start tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck.
Dr. Shaw testified that he thought the oval wound in JBC's back could have been caused either by a tumbling bullet or by a tangential strike at an angle.
Question: If the latter was the case, how sharp of an angle are we talking about, and, concomitantly, where must the shooter have been?
If the wound to JFK's back was caused by one bullet and the wound to JBC's back was caused by another bullet, which wound was caused by CE-399?
Neither?
If JBC's back wound was caused by CE-399, what happened to the bullet that wounded JFK's back?
Was it an ice bullet that melted, or did it somehow disappear inside his body?
Dr. Shaw testified that the bullet wound in JBC's back was about 1.5cm (15mm) long, which is more than twice the diameter of a Carcano 6.5mm bullet. You like to point out that Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck reported that the entrance wound near JFK's external occipital protuberance was also 15mm long.
Are you suggesting that JFK and JBC were both shot by a sniper that was shooting from a sharp horizontal angle behind and above them?
Regardless, if CE-399 wasn't yet yawing when it penetrated JBC's back, it certainly was when it penetrated his wrist backwards and carried fragments of his clothing into the wound.
Rhetorical question: How did CE-399 get deformed the way it did if not from striking JBC's radial bone while rotating?
How do tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists like you explain why and how "the bad guys" created and planted a bullet like that?
Did they squeeze it in a vise?
Hit it with a mallet?
Somehow fire it backwards into a bucket of water or a bale of cotton?
Have you seen JFK's "autopsy face sheet" -- the stylized diagram of a male body, front and back, on which Dr. Boswell placed too low, diagrammatically speaking, the entry wound in JFK's back (and Representative Ford rightfully corrected)? Well, in the margin of the face sheet, Boswell wrote down the precise locations of both the entry wound in JFK's back and the entry wound in his head as they related to certain anatomical features and as dictated to him by Dr. Humes!
Question: What do those notes say about the location of the former (i.e., the back wound)? Something about it's being 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) below the tip of the right mastoid process?
Do you know where those anatomical features are, Milicent?
The acromion process is at the upper tip of our triangular-shaped shoulder blade and is therefore next to our arm socket. Fourteen centimeters (5.5 inches) to the left of the right one would be way up there, wouldn't it, and that measurement jibes with Boswell's other note saying the back wound was (also!) 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) below the tip of the right mastoid process.
Mastoid process?
I looked it up and learned where it is -- so I'll very graciously share with you that information -- it's about the same level as the bottom of our ear lobe!
Gosh, 14 centimeters [5.5 inches] below the bottom of the ear lobe sure as heck isn't down by your beloved thoracic vertebra, is it, it's up there pretty dang high, and the entry wound was therefore in JFK's lower neck and . . . gasp . . . the so-called SBT is plausible after all, especially when one considers the fact (as captured by photographs that were taken of the limo from behind during the motorcade) that JBC was sitting significantly farther to the left and significantly below JFK, and, as can be seen in the Zapruder film, was turned far to his right when they were both struck by CE-399.
Are you aware of how many times Humes et al revised the record? He was under intense pressure to deliver only data that appeared to support the lone assassin theory. But in some cases, when a wound dramatically contradicted that theory, he chose to not mention it -- at all.
Why don't you download the entire Brooklyn phone book in here. It might divert attention away from the fact that you promote demonstrably false information. And you are one of the many amateurs who supplies "information" to Wikipedia? Reader beware.
Until a complete collection of records of Trump's medical treatment -- documents, photographs, X-rays, scans, etc. -- is released and verified to contain materials that are original and unadulterated, the possibilities that Trump was not struck by a complete or fragmented missile or shrapnel and that the "assassination" attempt was a charade cannot be ruled out. I previously detailed how the "wounding" could have been choreographed.
The wounding of Regan and his treatments were the subjects of numerous, illustrated contemporaneous press briefings.
The article by Russ Baker about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and your reply to it remind me of the KGB*-encouraged conspiracy theories surrounding the anomaly-replete JFK assassination.
Speaking of the JFKA, I just now posted this reply to CT Chad Nagle at Jefferson Morley's Substack page, "JFK Facts" (sic):
"Dear Chad,
I think (conspiracy theorist!) John M. Newman is correct when he says in his 2022 book, “Uncovering Popov’s Mole,” that Bruce Leonard Solie — look him up — was a KGB “mole” in the CIA’s mole-hunting Office of Security, and that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible “dangle” in a planned-to-fail hunt for “Popov’s Mole” (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA — the Soviet Russia Division.
Which mole hunt lasted nine years, protected Solie from being uncovered, tore the Soviet Russia Division apart, and drove Angleton nuts.
Although Oswald was sent to Moscow by (the KGB-controlled) CIA and lived two blocks from a KGB training school in Minsk for two-and-one-half years, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the KGB was behind the assassination.
Oswald was a sharpshooting self-described Marxist who had been diagnosed at age 13 with some serious psychological issues, so it’s likely that he killed JFK not due to KGB encouragement, training or “programming,” but simply to advance the Marxist-Leninist Dialectic and/or because he was a very, very angry young man.
Regarding your bugbear, the so-called Single Bullet Theory (which you claim only a liar or an fool would believe), several things argue for its being true: JFK’s elbows and arms splayed out automatically and very noticeably due to the bullet’s nicking the transverse process of his sixth cervical vertebra, whereas JBC’s reaction to having his fifth rib smashed (possibly by the pressure pulse created by the bullet) and his wrist’s radial bone smashed by the bullet’s hitting it backwards, was more “subtle.” The lapel of JBC’s jacket does flip outward at Z-224, however, and his jacket can be seen to “puff” outwards in Z-222 or Z-223. JBC was sitting significantly lower and farther to the left than JFK, and he was turned far to his right when struck by the bullet, i.e., the two men were properly aligned with each other to explain the wounds from CE-399 that they sustained. The bullet was deformed (like a squeezed tube of toothpaste) only in its rear 1/3 or so, and some of its lead core was squeezed out of its end. Due to the oblong shape of the wound in JBC's back and the fact that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling when it exits something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck -- we know that the bullet was already tumbling or "yawing" when it penetrated JBC's back, and we know that it struck JBC’s wrist backwards and/or tangentially because it carried some fragments of his clothing into the wound (the rounded nose of the bullet wouldn’t have done that).
If one refuses to accept the “Single Bullet Theory” as correct, then he or she has to explain why and how the bad guys created and planted a bullet (CE-399) that was deformed so strangely."
I could go on and on, but that’s enough for you to chew on for now.
What I call "smart but snide" -- and clever enough to say things that sound persuasive until carefully examined. Tell us more about yourself! And btw, oh resident of very wealthy La Jolla, if you would like to put up some funding in the form of a tax deductible donation for investigative research by our nonprofit news organization, I could devote the time to carefully researching and responding with facts to the many things you assert with so much confidence.
What "things" have I said that "sound persuasive (only) until they're "carefully examined"?
Regardless, I prefer to give my billions to causes like The Internet Archive (where you can read-for-free Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 Yale University Press book, "Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries and Deadly Games" and his 2014 PDF follow-up, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's 1994 book, "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA," and also to Wikipedia, where you can read my article on the aforementioned Tennent H. Bagley and my draft article on probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie -- which draft article was rejected by Wikipedia because "not enough established authors have written about him" -- LOL! -- but can still be read by googling "Bruce Leonard Solie" and arriving at it "through the back door."
Thank you Mr. Baker. Your great book, "Family of Secrets" was most excellent. It gives the reader so much to think about. Your work is greatly appreciated.
When I was a patient at George Washington hospital in about 1990 I ended up in the same ER bay Reagan was treated in. The same ER tech that treated me had treated Reagan. He told me Reagan would have died if he had been a half mile further away from the GW ER. When Reagan arrived at the hospital he walked by himself from his limo. As he got to the double swinging doors he started to fall backwards & the ER tech caught him & dragged him to the table & plunged an IV into him with no time to spare as Reagan’s blood pressure was rapidly dropping. He was very close to death.
Simple, really. At the anticipated sound of controlled gunfire, Trump reaches for his ear and then swiftly goes down. He places his palmed blood capsule at the point of "impact" and empties it. The otherwise inexplicable razor-straight "blood" lines on his face are squirting effects from a sloppy release.
This sleight-of-hand has been refined over decades of professional wrestling charades. Is it just coincidence that Hulk Hogan recently has been genuflecting before his Master? Or that Trump participated in at least one WWF extravaganza?
HOW WAS MEDICAL TREATMENT FAKED?
Simple, really. In a recent CNN article, Dr. Sanjay Gupta noted the following:
"US Rep. Ronny Jackson, Trump’s former White House physician [and a serial liar -- CD], said during an interview Monday on 'The Benny Show' podcast, that he 'checked out' the wound to Trump’s ear and bandaged it himself. He added that 'there was no concussive effect from the bullet' because it was far enough from Trump’s head.
"'It just took the top of his ear off, a little bit of the top of his ear off, as it passed through,' Jackson said. 'It was bleeding like crazy.'
"Trump was transported to nearby Butler Memorial Hospital. Dr. David Rottinghaus, an emergency room physician there, said the hospital had been in contact with the Secret Service before Saturday’s rally. Rottinghaus, who did not treat Trump himself and would not comment on Trump’s treatment or condition, said he came to the hospital shortly after the shooting to help triage patients."
So ... Trump's corrupt, disgraced physician/accomplice alone can describe the "wound" and its "treatment"? The Butler Hospital E.R. physician refused to comment.
In my revised post below, I pose a number of reasonable, significant questions relating to the "treatment" of Trump's "wound". They remain unanswered.
As for the set-up of the pathetic Manchurian Candidate, it could have evolved through a host of well-established procedures. Just ask Sirhan. Possible scenarios will be presented in a later post.
________________________
QUESTIONS
Who are the physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who treated him?
Why wasn't a traditional physician-led press conference held to describe wound(s), treatment procedures, and prognosis?
Were X-rays and photos of the wound pre- and post-treatment taken? If so, will all of them be shown to the world?
Will the "victim" voluntarily and immediately waive privacy rights in order to inform the public?
Why aren't bruising and swelling visible near the site of alleged impact?
I keep ranting (albeit first time here) that the mainstream news media are actually harmful with their relentless BS. They by definition let the audience believe they’re being informed when it’s in fact the obvious.
In their defense (not an actual defense), with the exception of a very brief period around civil rights, Vietnam and Watergate, the mainstream has been an establishment propaganda exercise with too few exceptions to matter. Now in an era of sociopathic leadership — see, neoliberalism, ignoring global warming, and full support for the reactionary, anti-democratic Republican Party, mainstream media owners — the media are another part of the existential threat the nation’s facing.
Which is to say: as Russ illustrates here, it’s the media outside the mainstream providing truths and facts — IF Stone Weekly, Ramparts, the Village Voice back in the day, WWW and Talking Points Memo these days (among many).
I loved your book. I am tired of the media continuing to protect this one family in particular. I knew once I learned Bush was in the mix of the JFK killing that we'd never be allowed to see the evidence. The CIA should have to show the records from decades ago & disband. We can't get away from this hideous legacy until we admit to it, learn from it, & stop it.
Regarding Thomas Graves’s comment – the part on the Kennedy assassination and the single bullet theory (SBT) – he is recycling the discredited work of the late John Lattimer, who published in medical journals what were essentially infomercials that escaped peer review.
Even if you have no interest in that case, you might want to know what a difference there is in what primary sources show — versus what someone implies they show.
I have no objection to anyone publishing theories, as long as they include obviously relevant information. But neither Lattimer nor Graves report the well documented details described by Kennedy’s own doctor, or the sworn testimony of other doctors and close witnesses who viewed the wounds directly -– details that contradict the SBT.
They all said JFK’s back wound was BELOW the shoulder (one even said it was low as T3, the third thoracic vertebra) -– and the throat wound was higher.
Based on JFK’s sitting position when first hit, this means that, if a bullet went through Kennedy and out his throat, its path had to slant upward – well above where a bullet had hit Governor Connally, who had been sitting in front of JFK. So that shot had to have come from a location lower than the “sniper’s nest.”
So Lattimer — who, incidentally, was J.Edgar Hoover’s urologist — tried to “prove” JFK’s back wound was HIGHER than it was, at C6, the sixth cervical vertebra.
He based this on a false presentation of how one is supposed to react to a blow at C6 (the “Thorburn reflex”), and a false presentation of how Kennedy reacted when shot. Lattimer published this theory in a journal not known for scientific rigor, and added to the byline the names of a neurosurgeon and a neurologist — colleagues of his.
Since JFK’s movements seemed more voluntary than reflexive, I was puzzled by this article, and called the neurosurgeon, Edward Schlesinger (a friend of a friend) to ask him about it. Schlessinger confessed that neither he nor the neurologist had much to do with the paper, aside from giving Lattimer some informal advice. They hadn’t even read the paper nor seen the Zapruder film
Lattimer also tried to use as proof images that appeared to be bullet fragments but, because similar images were in places far removed from the wound track (e.g. thighs), they were considered artefacts. For more on this, go here.
Graves also recycled Lattimer when it came to the wound on Gov. Connally’s back. To “prove” the bullet had already gone through JFK, Lattimer said the bullet was tumbling, and landed sideways on Connally’s back – leaving a wound that was 3 cm, the exact length of the magic bullet.
Lattimer published a report that said the wound was 3 cm — but didn’t tell his readers that was the size only after surgical enlargement by the surgeon, Robert Shaw, MD. (Vol 6, p 88, Warren Commission Hearings) Shaw testified on four occasions that the wound was only 1.5 x o.6 cm. (Vol 4, pp 104, 107, and Vol 6, pp 85, 86; , Warren Commission Hearings) For more on this particular con, go here.
Dear Milicent,
What did Boswell's / Hume's measurements in the margin of the autopsy diagram say?
Regardless, wasn't the bullet hole in JBC's back oblong in shape, and isn't it true that, as can be seen in the PBS NOVA Special, "Cold Case JFK," the type of bullet that Oswald's short-rifle fired had a tendency to start yawing / tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck?
-- Tom
Mr Graves, Have you no response to why you gave so much demonstrably false information?
Humes was never sure of his script and has to keep changing it to fit official narrative. Regarding the lie about the Connally's wound's size: You now direct out attention to the wound's shape. As if the only explanation for its oval shape means it was tumbling which in turn means it had first gone through JFK. Surgeon's explanation: the bullet entered TANGENTIALLY. And he made it very clear that the tunnel into the body indicated a bullet traveling nose on. As for that NOVA special, it was infested with fraud. Just like Lattimer's infomercials.
"Surgeon's explanation: the bullet entered TANGENTIALLY. And he made it very clear that the tunnel into the body indicated a bullet traveling nose on."
You must be thinking of the wound to JFK.
I thought slight tumbling was possible, this is what the surgeon said: The bullet created a "small tunneling wound" (7HSCA149) and he noted, "the neat way in which it stripped the rib out without doing much damage to the muscles that lay on either side of it." (4WCH116)
But since you thought Gerald Ford knew more about JFK's back wound than the prosector, you may not trust this surgeon either. Maybe you could channel Arlen Specter.
As shown in "Cold Case JFK," round-nosed 6.5mm Carcano rounds fired from a Carcano like Oswald's have a strong tendency to start tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck.
Dr. Shaw testified that he thought the oval wound in JBC's back could have been caused either by a tumbling bullet or by a tangential strike at an angle.
Question: If the latter was the case, how sharp of an angle are we talking about, and, concomitantly, where must the shooter have been?
If the wound to JFK's back was caused by one bullet and the wound to JBC's back was caused by another bullet, which wound was caused by CE-399?
Neither?
If JBC's back wound was caused by CE-399, what happened to the bullet that wounded JFK's back?
Was it an ice bullet that melted, or did it somehow disappear inside his body?
Dr. Shaw testified that the bullet wound in JBC's back was about 1.5cm (15mm) long, which is more than twice the diameter of a Carcano 6.5mm bullet. You like to point out that Drs. Humes, Boswell and Finck reported that the entrance wound near JFK's external occipital protuberance was also 15mm long.
Are you suggesting that JFK and JBC were both shot by a sniper that was shooting from a sharp horizontal angle behind and above them?
Dear Milicent,
What's the name of that surgeon?
Do you remember?
Regardless, if CE-399 wasn't yet yawing when it penetrated JBC's back, it certainly was when it penetrated his wrist backwards and carried fragments of his clothing into the wound.
Rhetorical question: How did CE-399 get deformed the way it did if not from striking JBC's radial bone while rotating?
How do tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorists like you explain why and how "the bad guys" created and planted a bullet like that?
Did they squeeze it in a vise?
Hit it with a mallet?
Somehow fire it backwards into a bucket of water or a bale of cotton?
-- Tom
Do you imagine no one would notice that you are using a questionable premise to support a questionable conclusion?
Dear Milicent,
Have you seen JFK's "autopsy face sheet" -- the stylized diagram of a male body, front and back, on which Dr. Boswell placed too low, diagrammatically speaking, the entry wound in JFK's back (and Representative Ford rightfully corrected)? Well, in the margin of the face sheet, Boswell wrote down the precise locations of both the entry wound in JFK's back and the entry wound in his head as they related to certain anatomical features and as dictated to him by Dr. Humes!
Question: What do those notes say about the location of the former (i.e., the back wound)? Something about it's being 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) below the tip of the right mastoid process?
Do you know where those anatomical features are, Milicent?
The acromion process is at the upper tip of our triangular-shaped shoulder blade and is therefore next to our arm socket. Fourteen centimeters (5.5 inches) to the left of the right one would be way up there, wouldn't it, and that measurement jibes with Boswell's other note saying the back wound was (also!) 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) below the tip of the right mastoid process.
Mastoid process?
I looked it up and learned where it is -- so I'll very graciously share with you that information -- it's about the same level as the bottom of our ear lobe!
Gosh, 14 centimeters [5.5 inches] below the bottom of the ear lobe sure as heck isn't down by your beloved thoracic vertebra, is it, it's up there pretty dang high, and the entry wound was therefore in JFK's lower neck and . . . gasp . . . the so-called SBT is plausible after all, especially when one considers the fact (as captured by photographs that were taken of the limo from behind during the motorcade) that JBC was sitting significantly farther to the left and significantly below JFK, and, as can be seen in the Zapruder film, was turned far to his right when they were both struck by CE-399.
I could go on and on, but that's enough for now.
-- Tom
Are you aware of how many times Humes et al revised the record? He was under intense pressure to deliver only data that appeared to support the lone assassin theory. But in some cases, when a wound dramatically contradicted that theory, he chose to not mention it -- at all.
Readers interested in this stunning omission can go here to read about it: https://whowhatwhy.org/politics/government-integrity/jfk-assassination-the-tell-tale-brain/
Dear Milicent,
Did they change their measurements from JFK's back wound to his acromion process and/or from his back wound to the tip of his mastoid process?
-- Tom
Why don't you download the entire Brooklyn phone book in here. It might divert attention away from the fact that you promote demonstrably false information. And you are one of the many amateurs who supplies "information" to Wikipedia? Reader beware.
Until a complete collection of records of Trump's medical treatment -- documents, photographs, X-rays, scans, etc. -- is released and verified to contain materials that are original and unadulterated, the possibilities that Trump was not struck by a complete or fragmented missile or shrapnel and that the "assassination" attempt was a charade cannot be ruled out. I previously detailed how the "wounding" could have been choreographed.
The wounding of Regan and his treatments were the subjects of numerous, illustrated contemporaneous press briefings.
Dear Charles Drago,
The article by Russ Baker about the attempted assassination of Donald Trump and your reply to it remind me of the KGB*-encouraged conspiracy theories surrounding the anomaly-replete JFK assassination.
Speaking of the JFKA, I just now posted this reply to CT Chad Nagle at Jefferson Morley's Substack page, "JFK Facts" (sic):
"Dear Chad,
I think (conspiracy theorist!) John M. Newman is correct when he says in his 2022 book, “Uncovering Popov’s Mole,” that Bruce Leonard Solie — look him up — was a KGB “mole” in the CIA’s mole-hunting Office of Security, and that he sent (or duped his confidant, protégé and mole-hunting subordinate, James Angleton, into sending) Oswald to Moscow in 1959 as an ostensible “dangle” in a planned-to-fail hunt for “Popov’s Mole” (Solie) in the wrong part of the CIA — the Soviet Russia Division.
Which mole hunt lasted nine years, protected Solie from being uncovered, tore the Soviet Russia Division apart, and drove Angleton nuts.
Although Oswald was sent to Moscow by (the KGB-controlled) CIA and lived two blocks from a KGB training school in Minsk for two-and-one-half years, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the KGB was behind the assassination.
Oswald was a sharpshooting self-described Marxist who had been diagnosed at age 13 with some serious psychological issues, so it’s likely that he killed JFK not due to KGB encouragement, training or “programming,” but simply to advance the Marxist-Leninist Dialectic and/or because he was a very, very angry young man.
Regarding your bugbear, the so-called Single Bullet Theory (which you claim only a liar or an fool would believe), several things argue for its being true: JFK’s elbows and arms splayed out automatically and very noticeably due to the bullet’s nicking the transverse process of his sixth cervical vertebra, whereas JBC’s reaction to having his fifth rib smashed (possibly by the pressure pulse created by the bullet) and his wrist’s radial bone smashed by the bullet’s hitting it backwards, was more “subtle.” The lapel of JBC’s jacket does flip outward at Z-224, however, and his jacket can be seen to “puff” outwards in Z-222 or Z-223. JBC was sitting significantly lower and farther to the left than JFK, and he was turned far to his right when struck by the bullet, i.e., the two men were properly aligned with each other to explain the wounds from CE-399 that they sustained. The bullet was deformed (like a squeezed tube of toothpaste) only in its rear 1/3 or so, and some of its lead core was squeezed out of its end. Due to the oblong shape of the wound in JBC's back and the fact that that kind of bullet has a tendency to start tumbling when it exits something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck -- we know that the bullet was already tumbling or "yawing" when it penetrated JBC's back, and we know that it struck JBC’s wrist backwards and/or tangentially because it carried some fragments of his clothing into the wound (the rounded nose of the bullet wouldn’t have done that).
If one refuses to accept the “Single Bullet Theory” as correct, then he or she has to explain why and how the bad guys created and planted a bullet (CE-399) that was deformed so strangely."
I could go on and on, but that’s enough for you to chew on for now.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-- Tom
What I call "smart but snide" -- and clever enough to say things that sound persuasive until carefully examined. Tell us more about yourself! And btw, oh resident of very wealthy La Jolla, if you would like to put up some funding in the form of a tax deductible donation for investigative research by our nonprofit news organization, I could devote the time to carefully researching and responding with facts to the many things you assert with so much confidence.
PS
Only if you promise to share the Pulitzer Prize with me.
Dear Russ,
What "things" have I said that "sound persuasive (only) until they're "carefully examined"?
Regardless, I prefer to give my billions to causes like The Internet Archive (where you can read-for-free Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 Yale University Press book, "Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries and Deadly Games" and his 2014 PDF follow-up, "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's 1994 book, "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA," and also to Wikipedia, where you can read my article on the aforementioned Tennent H. Bagley and my draft article on probable KGB "mole" Bruce Leonard Solie -- which draft article was rejected by Wikipedia because "not enough established authors have written about him" -- LOL! -- but can still be read by googling "Bruce Leonard Solie" and arriving at it "through the back door."
-- Tom
See my response to you above.
Yes, I know you.
Thank you Mr. Baker. Your great book, "Family of Secrets" was most excellent. It gives the reader so much to think about. Your work is greatly appreciated.
When I was a patient at George Washington hospital in about 1990 I ended up in the same ER bay Reagan was treated in. The same ER tech that treated me had treated Reagan. He told me Reagan would have died if he had been a half mile further away from the GW ER. When Reagan arrived at the hospital he walked by himself from his limo. As he got to the double swinging doors he started to fall backwards & the ER tech caught him & dragged him to the table & plunged an IV into him with no time to spare as Reagan’s blood pressure was rapidly dropping. He was very close to death.
HOW COULD TRUMP HAVE FAKED HIS "BULLET WOUND"?
Simple, really. At the anticipated sound of controlled gunfire, Trump reaches for his ear and then swiftly goes down. He places his palmed blood capsule at the point of "impact" and empties it. The otherwise inexplicable razor-straight "blood" lines on his face are squirting effects from a sloppy release.
This sleight-of-hand has been refined over decades of professional wrestling charades. Is it just coincidence that Hulk Hogan recently has been genuflecting before his Master? Or that Trump participated in at least one WWF extravaganza?
HOW WAS MEDICAL TREATMENT FAKED?
Simple, really. In a recent CNN article, Dr. Sanjay Gupta noted the following:
"US Rep. Ronny Jackson, Trump’s former White House physician [and a serial liar -- CD], said during an interview Monday on 'The Benny Show' podcast, that he 'checked out' the wound to Trump’s ear and bandaged it himself. He added that 'there was no concussive effect from the bullet' because it was far enough from Trump’s head.
"'It just took the top of his ear off, a little bit of the top of his ear off, as it passed through,' Jackson said. 'It was bleeding like crazy.'
"Trump was transported to nearby Butler Memorial Hospital. Dr. David Rottinghaus, an emergency room physician there, said the hospital had been in contact with the Secret Service before Saturday’s rally. Rottinghaus, who did not treat Trump himself and would not comment on Trump’s treatment or condition, said he came to the hospital shortly after the shooting to help triage patients."
So ... Trump's corrupt, disgraced physician/accomplice alone can describe the "wound" and its "treatment"? The Butler Hospital E.R. physician refused to comment.
In my revised post below, I pose a number of reasonable, significant questions relating to the "treatment" of Trump's "wound". They remain unanswered.
As for the set-up of the pathetic Manchurian Candidate, it could have evolved through a host of well-established procedures. Just ask Sirhan. Possible scenarios will be presented in a later post.
________________________
QUESTIONS
Who are the physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who treated him?
Why wasn't a traditional physician-led press conference held to describe wound(s), treatment procedures, and prognosis?
Were X-rays and photos of the wound pre- and post-treatment taken? If so, will all of them be shown to the world?
Will the "victim" voluntarily and immediately waive privacy rights in order to inform the public?
Why aren't bruising and swelling visible near the site of alleged impact?
"Highly respectable figures" my you-know-what.
News flash: Sharpshooting Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK by firing three shots at him over 10.32 seconds in the echo chamber known as Dealey Plaza.
I keep ranting (albeit first time here) that the mainstream news media are actually harmful with their relentless BS. They by definition let the audience believe they’re being informed when it’s in fact the obvious.
In their defense (not an actual defense), with the exception of a very brief period around civil rights, Vietnam and Watergate, the mainstream has been an establishment propaganda exercise with too few exceptions to matter. Now in an era of sociopathic leadership — see, neoliberalism, ignoring global warming, and full support for the reactionary, anti-democratic Republican Party, mainstream media owners — the media are another part of the existential threat the nation’s facing.
Which is to say: as Russ illustrates here, it’s the media outside the mainstream providing truths and facts — IF Stone Weekly, Ramparts, the Village Voice back in the day, WWW and Talking Points Memo these days (among many).
A possible motive might be the "October Surprise" of 1980. Bush was in Paris weeks before the election. Why? Two books were written contemporaneously.
I loved your book. I am tired of the media continuing to protect this one family in particular. I knew once I learned Bush was in the mix of the JFK killing that we'd never be allowed to see the evidence. The CIA should have to show the records from decades ago & disband. We can't get away from this hideous legacy until we admit to it, learn from it, & stop it.