Jump to content
The Education Forum

Micah Mileto

Members
  • Content count

    379
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Micah Mileto

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,162 profile views
  1. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    This is getting too hard to copy and paste at once. Let me try to do it shorthand: 1. Robert Livingston's story is inconsequential. 2. John Stringer and John Ebersole both remembered a phone call to Dallas during the autopsy that made the autopsy pathologists aware of the throat wound. 3. As ARRB MD 165 shows, the FBI was aware as of 6/2/1966 that people were beginning the question the timeline of the autopsy. Francis X. O'Neill told the HSCA and everyone afterwards that he witnessed the later stages of the body's reconstruction, which is impossible if he was at the FBI lab by 1:45 AM. 4. The Death of a President and The Day Kennedy Was Shot places the phone call to Dr. Perry at around midnight. 5. Other autopsy witnesses who made statements indicating the autopsy pathologists discussed and probed the throat wound as a bullet hole (Lipsey, Jenkins, Robinson, etc.) 6. Boswell can't keep his story straight 7. Dr. Perry remembered the phone call as happening on Friday night.
  2. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    formatting issues rn
  3. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    deleted
  4. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    That's not what the Sibert and O'Neill report says, almost like they departed the autopsy before the body examination was finished. Enough time to make a phone call, maybe? Boswell never could keep his story straight on this throat wound business. When he talked to the HSCA, he actually changed his story mid-interview. 11/25/1966 Baltimore Sun article "Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report" by Richard H. Levine https://archive.org/stream/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/nsia-AutopsyJFKBoswellJThorton/Autopsy JFK JTB 08#page/n0/mode/2up [...] In an interview yesterday, Dr. Boswell also discussed other aspects of the autopsy and the wounds that have led to a host of theories about the shooting, and speculation about the number of bullets and the number of assassins. He said there was absolutely no doubt that the controversial neck and throat wound were caused by a bullet that entered the base of President Kennedy's neck, passed completely through the neck and exited from the throat. Writers claiming a second assassin was involved in Dallas on November 22, 1963, suggest the President was shot in the neck by someone located in front of the presidential limousine. [...] In an interview at his home in Bethesda, Dr. Boswell, who is now retired from the Navy and in private practice, recounted details of the entire autopsy. His remarks, in several instances, dealt with key matters that are central to the theories of those critics who believe that more than one person killed the President. Amoung the important points he made were these: 1. All of the shots that struck the President came from behind him. 2. The President was struck by two bullets, one of which hit him in the head and disintegrated, the other of which passed through his neck. 3. There was no other bullet wound. [...] Dr. Boswell said that the President's body was subjected to a thorough examination. All marks and scars, were noted, including old surgical scars and surgical cuts made that day by Dallas doctors trying to save his life. The pathologists had already been told of the probable extent of the injuries and what had been done by physicians in Dallas. [...] Wound Not Evident The wound in the throat was not immediately evident at the autopsy, Dr. Boswell said, because of the tracheotomy performed in Dallas. He said the wound in the back of the neck was noticed when the body was turned over. It was a new discovery. According to the Warren Commission testimony, Dallas physicians did not make a thorough examination of the President at first because of the evident seriousness of the massive head wound and the necessity of immediate emergency procedures. They believed the throat wound was an entrance wound and never did turn the body over to look for back wounds, even after the President died. Dr. Boswell said that the tracheotomy incision was examined and extensive trauma was noted on one side. When the wound in the back of the neck was discovered and probed, by finger and by metal surgical probe, no bullet could be located. He said that the probing was to a depth of about 4 or 5 centimeters. Complete X-Rays At this point, according to Dr. Boswell, complete x-rays of the entire body were ordered in an effort to locate the bullet. Dr. Boswell recalled that either he or one of the other pathologists made a remark to the effect that the bullet might have worked its way back out of the entrance wound. "This was a very transient thought," he said, adding that he had never seen a case in which this had happened and therefore did not give this possibility much weight. What was more probable, he said, was the possibility of the bullet’s being in some remote area of the body. He said that medical literature recounts many examples of wildly erratic paths taken by bullets that ricochet through the body, glancing from bones and slipping along muscle planes. As an example, he mentioned a case he examined where a bullet that entered the victim’s chest was located in a lower leg. The doctor said that retrieval of bullets, as well as the determination of their paths, is extremely important in all forensic autopsies because of the legal necessity of linking wounds, bullets, weapons and assailants. Dr. Boswell said the x-rays were immediately examined by all three pathologists as well as by the radiologist who took them. He said the presence of bullets in an x-ray is unmistakable because of the capacity of metal lo block the rays. He said there was no bullet in the body, although "minute particles" could be discerned the head. Dr. Boswell said he is “absolutely” convinced that all of these particles came from the bullet that struck the President’s head. Bullet In Stretcher Around this time, according to the FBI report, the FBI observers infortned Dr. Humes that a bullet had been recovered from a stretcher in the Dallas hospital. Dr. Boswell said that the autopsy was resumed after the examination of the x-rays, the pathologists assuming that, unlikely as it seemed, the bullet had exited from the same hole it entered. He said that the autopsy proceeded routinely. According to the autopsy report, and confirmed by Dr. Boswell, the internal examination revealed a bruise in the apex, or uppermost tip, of the right lung. There was also a bruise of the parietal, pleura, the membrane that lines the lung cage. Dr. Boswell said be and his colleagues decided that the bullet had not made a superficial wound after all, but had passed above the area of the bruise. He said that neither the parietal pleura nor the lung cage were disrupted, indicating that the lung cage had not been pierced. "We concluded that night that the bullet had, in fact, entered in the back of the neck, traversed the neck and exited anteriorly," Dr. Boswell said. He said that a telephone call made to the hospital in Dallas by Dr. Humes the following morning merely confirmed what was already a certainty to the pathologists - that there was a bullet wound in the President's neck at the point of the tracheotomy incision. Dr. Boswell said it was impossible to determine during autopsy if the throat wound was one of entry or exit because of the incision. Determination Unnecessary This determination was unnecessary, he said, since the wound in the back of the neck was determined by observation and microscopic examination one of entry, and because the path of the bullet was determined by the bruise marks in marks in the lung area. [...] The FBI account of the autopsy is dated November 26, four days after the examination. It refers to a back wound, but this, according to Dr. Boswell, can be a laymen's observation of an area just below the shoulder line that, to a physician, is still the neck region. Mote disturbingly, it recounts the incident during which the exit wound was undiscovered and leaves, unchanged, a statement in which Dr. Humes concluded the bullet had worked itself cut of the same hole it had entered. Story Left Unchanged Dr. Boswell said that, at the time, he paid no attention to the presence of the FBI agents but that he can only conclude that they either did not understand what later took place, or else left before the lung contusions were discovered. 8/17/1977 Boswell-Purdy HSCA Interview ARRB MD 26 - https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=607#relPageId=3&tab=page , https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md26.pdf [...] DR. BOSWELL indicated that regarding the tracheostomy, the doctors "...thought it was a wound." He meant to convey the impression that the doctors thought it was a bullet wound. (This becomes potentially signifigant in laer stages of the interview.) [...] Dr. Boswell said the autopsy doctors assumed that the anterior neck wound was a wound of exit, saying that hole is not that big and that it was "...far bigger that wound of entry." He said the doctors didn't explicitly discuss the possibility of a tracheotomy having been performed but said it was assumed that this was a possibility. He said Parkland did not really do a tracheotomy in the sense that they never inserted a tube. (See notes on interview with Dr. Perry.) Dr. Boswell said that if a full autopsy had been performed they would have removed the trachea. Dr. Boswell said he remembered seeing part of the perimeter of a bullet wound in the anterior neck. [...] Dr. BOSWELL was asked why the back wound was probed if the autopsy doctors knew the bullet had exited out the anterior neck (as Dr. BOSWELL stated earlier in the interview). Dr. BOSWELL said that Dr. BURKLEY didn't mention the fact that a tracheotomy had been performed. He said that Dr. BURKLEY was very upset and this might have explained his failure to mention this important fact. Dr. BOSWELL said (without indicating that he was being inconsistent with his previous statement), the doctors felt anterior neck damage was caused by a tracheotomy wound and in the later courses of the autopsy thought it may have included the exist wound of a bullet. He said the x-rays were examined during the autopsy in trying to accomplish what they saw as their main purpose, namely to look for a bullet. Dr. BOSWELL is a little vague as to when the doctors felt that a bullet may have fallen out the neck wound, but seemed to indicate it occurred around the time they learned the bullet had been discovered in Parkland and prior to the time when they began to feel there was a very real possibility of an exit wound in the anterior neck.
  5. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    Reminder: The first media reports mentioning the existence of a back wound came out in December 7, 1963, a week after the November 29,1963 date of the Barnum journal.
  6. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    Dr. Perry told both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA that he thought the phone call came lste night 11/22/1963, where in Maryland it may have technically been the early morning hours of 11/23. You know this. Answer to your second Q: George A. Barnum Had a handwritten journal dated 11/29/1963. 8/20/1979 interview from BEST EVIDENCE: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David Lifton, 1980 [Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered] [...] [...]Nevertheless, circumstancial evidence supports this theory. My own investigation has turned up two accounts in- [...] [...]dicating that a transiting neck trajectory was being discussed on Friday night. In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck: "The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."61 Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend.* James Jenkins told me that during the autopsy, when the "civilians" were practically arguing with Humes, they put the idea to him that the bullet entered at the rear, exiting through the tracheotomy inision, and that the bullet went on to hit Connally.**62 [...] [...] *Barnum's account also raises this question: why Burkley, speaking informally, described a transiting trajectory, yet in filing his medical report on November 22, omitted any mention of the throat wound. **Unfortunately, Jenkins never made a written record, and so it is easy to discount his recollections by claiming he was influenced by what he later read in books and magazines. But having spoken with him, I didn't believe that was the case. Jenkins did not follow the case and, in fact, until I spoke with him in September 1979, did not know a bullet wound at the front of the neck had been observed in Dallas. Jenkins kept referring to it as the "tracheotomy incision," and couldn't understand why those "civilians" in the autopsy room kept claiming that a bullet exited there.
  7. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    Do you think Humes contacted Perry on Friday night or the next day? Why are there so many indications they were aware of the throat wound during the body examination?
  8. Micah Mileto

    Givens down to one lie

    Hank Sienzant ? I've been on about 3 threads about jfk with that guy on internationalskeptics for about 2 years now. Just by arguing a few key medical evidence points (the EOP wound, the doctors alleged ignorance of the throat wound), I've turned that guy into a babbling mess. That dude plays dumb and uses just about every logical fallacy known to man, anything to stretch the length of a thread to fill it with spam. He misunderstands key facts and often pretends to forget key facts, even if they were recently discussed with him before. That's in cases where he's at least being coherent. And I only got into this stuff for about 2 years. Seriously, try checking out the 3 most recent JFK threads on ISF. I am the one with Rocky the Squirrel as the avatar.
  9. Micah Mileto

    The JFK Assassination (2018) by James DiEugenio

    Are we still allowed to talk about the dollar bills? Because what is your explanation for the "half bills" note from the Dallas Municipal Archives? Do you agree that is probably describing two $1 notes with their other halves missing? If so, do you agree that this relates to the "torn" bill from the wallet? There are two paths in front of a LN for this problem: either "It's all a coincidence, these items were probably collected by Oswald incidentally" or "Of course the dollar bills were about spy stuff, Oswald just liked pretending to be James Bond that's all"
  10. Micah Mileto

    The JFK Assassination (2018) by James DiEugenio

    The movie theater meeting point like when David Atlee Phillips would meet at movie theaters and exchange the torn half of a dollar bill with matching sides? The partially torn $1 bill found in the wallet could have been saved for the purpose of tearing it completely and giving a portion to somebody else. All three reported cases of "half bills" or partially torn bills have odd three-digit numbers written on them.
  11. Micah Mileto

    The Tippit Case in the New Millenium

    Would it be fair to say that both the wallet in evidence and the CBS footage wallet are a unusual fashion for the 60's in this area?
  12. But why did the FBI reportedly find traces of lead on the mark after they said it had mysteriously disappeared? Why does Jose Fernandez's findings mean? If the mark was paved over with cement paste, when was it done? Before or after the lead was reportedly found?
  13. Here is my understanding: 1. The James Tague curb fragment is photographed, a thin smear of lead and some millimeter-portion of cement missing. 2. James Tague goes to photograph the curb to show his family, only to find the lead smear gone. 3. The FBI re-examines the curb and no lead smear is found. Rainfall and street-sweeping vehicles are to blame for the lack of any mark in the same location. "It should be noted that no nick or break in the concrete was observed, in the area checked, nor was there any mark similar to the one in the photographs taken by Underwood and Dillard observed in the area checked either by the Special Agents, by Mr. Underwood or Mr. Dillard. It should be noted that, since this mark was observed on November 23, 1963, there have been numerous rains, which could have possibly washed away any such mark and also that the area is cleaned by a street cleaning machine about once a week, which would also wash away any such mark" http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Shaneyfelt_Ex_26.pdf 4. After James Tagues testimony, the FBI removes the portion of the curb for further examination. They somehow inexplicably find that there is a mark with some amount of lead, with no copper. http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/pdf/WH21_Shaneyfelt_Ex_27.pdf 5. The curbstone is given to the National Archives, and in 1983 the mark is re-examined and is found to have probably been filled in with cement paste. http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/C Disk/Curbstone/Item 22.pdf James Tague also re-examined the curb for himself and decided that there was a difference. Some basic difference can be seen in the before and after photos. What happened exactly? Is this physical proof of a FBI coverup or something else?
  14. http://www.newsweek.com/jfk-assassination-conspiracy-theory-debunked-new-gunshot-study-902292
×