Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Micah Mileto

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Micah Mileto

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

548 profile views
  1. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    Speer's page has brightened versions of the open-cranium photographs showing that what some thought might be the neck is actually a table, with a formalin bottle sitting on it.
  2. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    If it shows the back of the head, then it must be the top-back part of the head, since there is no neck visible. That body position would also probably require the chin to be resting on the chest.
  3. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    Michael, the open-cranium photographs can not be used as evidence for how the original wound looked like. Those were taken after the brain had already been removed. The skull cavity had to be enlarged to facilitate removal of the brain.
  4. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    The open-cranium photographs might show subcutaneous fat from the torso Y-incision, and even a nipple. This would be the upper left corner of this rotation: (Lower left corner in this rotation): http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg54d81a9d.png From radiation oncologist David Mantik: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/thomas-donald-byron-hear-no-evil-social-constructivism-and-the-forensic-evidence-in-the-kennedy-assassination-two-reviews-2-part-1" David Mantik's 11/21/2009 presentation slides: http://assassinationscience.com/JFK_Skull_X-rays.htm ARRB staff report of observations and opinions of forensic pathologist Dr. Robert H. Kirschner: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=230tab=page
  5. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    Not just Humes, Boswell, and Finck. John Stringer, Roy Kellerman, Richard Lipsey, Francis X. O'Neil, and Chester Boyers all gave statements supporting an entry near the EOP.
  6. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    Here's a kicker: You could probably count how many qualified experts have studied the JFK X-rays on one hand. That's right, all that is required to be a forensic pathologist is to determine the cause of death at an autopsy. Interpreting gunshot wound X-rays, especially those with so many nuances and artifacts as the inadequate JFK X-rays, is nowhere in the job description of forensic pathology. When Dr. Pierre Finck was shown the JFK X-rays and asked to identify an entry wound, he replied "I always refer to the radiologists on those issues". I would like to see a new team of forensic radiologists examine the X-rays, and use something other than 70's computer technology to enhance their quality.
  7. Tracking Oswald Part 5

    DVP, the cowlick entry theory cannot be true. Dr. Finck arrived at the autopsy after the brain had already been removed, and yet he always said that he could see the entry hole undisturbed within the intact, empty cranium (not as a previously-removed fragment). How, then, do you remove Kennedy's brain without first separating the upper cowlick area of the skull? Otherwise the cavity would be too small to fit a brain through. Also consider that the area of the skull around the large defect was so brittle that the doctors barely had to do any sawing to enlarge the skull cavity. So of course the "cowlick" area of the skull had to come off. The lower EOP location allows plenty of room to remove that brain. This simple slice of common sense also completely debunks the HSCA interpretation of the open-cranium photographs, which implies that the entire brain somehow fit through a five-inch skull cavity.
  8. Helicopter at Bethesda

    Will there be an updated edition of Best Evidence when Final Charade comes out, or is the 1992 Signet edition the last one? I'm thinking about getting a copy of the 1992 one but not sure if I should wait.
  9. Bethesda autopsy witness Richard Lipsey

    Where is that tape, or diary or whatever that Richard Lipsey said Samuel Bird made a day after the autopsy describing everything that happened? https://books.google.com/books?id=cNwUCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=Sam+Bird+jfk+autopsy&source=bl&ots=WoIPsrKdYS&sig=SAR_snwPvdBrrd0HT7WCJccfvEk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwji2J627ObUAhUr9YMKHQesB2cQ6AEIVDAI#v=onepage&q=Sam Bird jfk autopsy&f=false
  10. How Max Holland Duped the Daily Beast

    Google Books shows quite a few pages talking about Holland: https://books.google.com/books?id=nsItAgAAQBAJ&q=holland#v=snippet&q=holland&f=false
  11. http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Feinman/Between_the_signal/Chapter_eight.html Roger Feinman's essay Between the Signal and the Noise argues that Burkley did in fact see the original throat wound.
  12. Didn't Dr. Burkley see the original throat wound? His WC affidavit says he only arrived to the emergency room 3-5 minutes after Kennedy arrived.
  13. The JFK Back Wound

    The bright version of one of the autopsy photographs provided by Robert Groden shows why the throat wound is almost certainly higher than the throat wound. The left-profile optical illusion stuff is BS. From this: http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Groden-iv.jpeg In this version, you can see the trach incision. Notice the zigzag-shaped mark on the right shoulder, and where it is in relation to the trach incision. This zigzag mark is apparent on the back wound photo.
  14. Unless anyone knows exactly what the DOJ is talking about here, any discussion of the physical evidence in the MLK case is stagnant.
  15. Somebody needs to re-examine that fragment in the upper neck Wecht reported on in 1974. That was never followed up on. Can X-ray films give "false positives" for dense fragments?