Micah Mileto

Members
  • Content count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Micah Mileto

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

311 profile views
  1. Jim, What "first Secret Service interview" do you mean? In Reclaiming Parkland, you cite : Report of Agent Charles Kunkel dated December 3, 1963, “Activities of the Oswald family from 11/24-30/ 63." but upon closer inspection there is no mention of rifles or scopes in that report.
  2. Here's a full PDF ebook file of Harvey and Lee: http://krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf CD-ROM contents in a zip file: krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee_CD_ROM.zip
  3. Re-watching this program, I saw that their test bullet was several times more deformed than they tried to make it look. The whole thing was bent at like a 45 degree angle. They just held it up to the camera a certain way to make it look less deformed. Very sneaky!
  4. I think Pat Speer's website has a great bit explaining how the arrangement of the scalp and bone flaps may have given the wrong impression of the large head wound in certain photographs. The films do show the large head wound extending somewhat to the back (parietal), but the BOH photographs conceal that with the Doctor holding up a flap of scalp.
  5. Paul, (All of this assuming the official medical evidence is true and accurate) The condition of the brain is already proof positive of two head shots if you consider it proven that the rear entry in the scalp and skull was low in the head, near the EOP, no higher than the level of the ears. Some like the theorize that it was below the EOP, but it's all the same if it was slightly above. The cerebellum isn't totally destroyed in the official brain photographs, so we would only have the option of saying a missile only grazed past it and hit the floor of the skull, i.e. didn't and couldn't exit the top-right side of the head.
  6. Was the Stemmons Sign shot idea ever taken very seriously? What's the evidence?
  7. Is this supposed to be an actual hole created by a whole bullet penetrating the wall? If so, why does it look like that?
  8. Wouldn't it have probably fallen out in his shirt at Parkland hospital, unless it was literally sticking out of the wound in which case it could have fallen into the limousine?
  9. For those who suspect that Oswald didn't know or suspect anything was going to happen on November 22, what is the standard refutation for him apparently leaving his money and wedding ring behind?
  10. So the lady who said "I think he (Lee Harvey Oswald) was a government agent." was herself a government plant and not the actual mother of Lee Harvey Oswald?
  11. You have multiple shooters with the official evidence being real or fake. The official brain photographs don't show the right cerebellum demolished like you'd expect from a EOP entry wound connecting to the top-right side of the head. So any single-assassin theorist must support the cowlick thing, which is ridiculous. If more experts came out and said the X-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, the single assassin scenario collapses.
  12. You have your low holes in the shirt/jacket, and I have my barely damaged right cerebellum. Nothing has to be forged for the EOP wound and the lack of severe cerebellar damage to prove a conspiracy. So if anybody wants to say there was a posterior exit wound, why would they cover that up something else that could easily be proof of conspiracy?
  13. Do you guys think the medical forgeries were created with the EOP entry wound in mind, or something different like the cowlick entry? If so, why didn't they make the right cerebellum area on the x-rays/surrogate brain show more damage? You can prove conspiracy without anything being fake.
  14. Here's that full audio book of the Lopez report, for free: https://www.dropbox.com/s/oqu24yfyb6humx8/HSCA_Oswald-the-CIA-and-Mexico-City_Our-Hidden-History.zip?dl=0
  15. I know this is an old post, but I hate Ronald Wieck. Some moments with him on Hardfire are funny, but that's about it. On a 9/11 Forum, he described a long phone call he had with demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who famously insisted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition from the day he saw the footage and afterwards until he died in a car accident. Wieck mentioned telling him about all of the firefighter's testimonies saying how big the fires were on the floors of WTC 7 and how long they lasted. Of course, that's all probably meaningless because the steel columns of WTC 7 had functional fireproofing material on them, something that even NIST admitted. That's why an unusual, rare event like some situations with low-heat thermal expansion is the favorite hypothesis among mainstream engineering material on the collapses. Wieck mentions telling Jowenko of the firefighters expecting WTC 7 to collapse because it was perceived at the time that it was a heavily damaged lost cause. However, we now know that the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse originated from a mysterious unidentified "engineer", who told the fire chiefs at about 11:30 AM that the building would collapse "in about five or six hours". What a eerily accurate premonition for only about an hour after the North Tower collapsed! Wieck concluded his rant by calling Jowenko an idiot. Even if Jowenko is ultimately wrong, he has more expertise than Ronald quoting out-of-context firefighter statements. Why would anybody care about what he thinks of this?