Jump to content
The Education Forum

Micah Mileto

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Micah Mileto

  • Rank
    Super Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,848 profile views
  1. Huber has his own chapter, seen above. I feel sure that Huber wasn't talking about the right side of the head. The left side of the head was of course covered in blood and hair, which might have made it difficult to see any wounds that might exist, but Huber was quoted as saying there was a "blotch of blood" or a "blood clot" on the "left forehead". So, an area on the left front of the head where there was a small coagulation of blood that resembled a wound.
  2. Thanks. While your website perfectly illustrates that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were describing the large head wound and not any small head wounds, there is a lot it doesn't include about the Parkland witnesses. Drs. Robert Shaw and David Stewart both claimed to have heard the other staff members discussing a wound in the left temple. Dr. Jenkins, at the very least, said there was blood on the left temple, that he placed his finger there, and that he suspected a wound there. Dr. McClelland said that he heard Jenkins say "there's a wound in the left temple" (in another version of the story, he
  3. Here is a pdf version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7VkiCR50DhuXRpVjrYJj4BHoeH9Rs-W/view?usp=sharing This does not include the Dealey Plaza witnesses because they was already handled perfectly in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt. They were almost certainly describing the LARGE head wound, not any small wounds.
  4. Small wound(s) in the front of JFK's head 120 pages CONTENTS PART 1.1 - Intro PART 1.2 PART 1.3 PART 2 - Dr. George Burkley, Kennedy’s personal physician; Malcolm Kilduff, White House press secretary PART 3 - Tom Robinson, mortician PART 4 - James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy lab technician PART 5.1 - Dennis David, William Pitzer, and Jerrol Custer PART 5.2 PART 5.3 PART 6 - Joe O'Donnell PART 7 - Quentin Schwinn PART 8 -
  5. I've been trying to figure out, I'm wondering if you can help me, but do you know any documents on who were the ones who discovered the (officially) three bone fragments in the Limo and delivered them to the autopsy room? All I can find is this "three inch triangular section of skull' document - but nothing on exactly who was the first to find it and who was the one to deliver it.
  6. So far, all I'm getting is that "press packs" are thin with numbers displayed while "duplex holders" are thick and unnumbered.
  7. In Best Evidence, Paul O'Connor said he could see the esophagus through the defect in the throat. I don't know if he ever specifically said the esophagus was damaged. John Ebersole was the one who initially said he remembered the body arriving with the throat sewn up, but in his last interview he changed his mind and said it wasn't.
  8. I'm trying to understand the issue with the brain photographs. I know John Stringer said he never used Ansco film, which is the brand of film used for the brain photographs in the official collection today. But he also said he didn't use a "press pack" and instead used a "duplex film holder". What does that mean, and what is the difference between the two? Search engines are not helping me visualize the difference.
  9. Thank you, Paul. I'm trying to see if I can make a perfect essay on this, putting the finishing touches on it and hoping it can be out on the anniversary.
  10. Yet another bombshell hiding in plain sight. The theory of one or more temple wounds is more alive than ever. I found this link to the quote, but a scan of the original magazine issue would be better: http://www.reminiscethis.co.uk/history?start=3
  11. Humes said in his WC testimony that he had to do "virtually" no work with a saw to remove the brain. The word "virtually" implies he had to cut some bone. Humes told the ARRB "we had to cut some bone". Floyd Riebe and Tom Robinson claim they saw the pathologists using a saw to cut bone.
  12. Does Dave or Chesser have an opinion on this dark path on the left side of the skull x-ray? Could it be a fissure in the brain, or just a bone fracture in the frontal-orbital area?
  13. If we are to suspect the rear back and scalp wounds were faked, what about the "coagulation necrosis" descriptions in the autopsy protocol? Would that information be exaggerated or outright false, or maybe the tissue samples were substituted with samples from real cases?
  14. There is so much more photographic evidence for dark shadows on the back of JFK's head, it just "seems" natural that the Zapruder film would show such dark shadows. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a pure coincidence, either - a multiple shooter conspiracy may take advantage of which direction the sun in shining (even if the Secret Service agents were all wearing sunglasses).
  • Create New...