Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I can't comment on this as I have not studied the wound above the eye. I actually haven't seen it mentioned in any of the testimony I've read.

I'm just going by what I remember from watching Doug Horne's six hour presentation a couple of times. Haven't read Inside The ARRB, If anybody Horne would've tallied up the witnesses who attest to a entry-like wound above the right eye. He might name every single one in his presentation. The story goes that a V-shaped incision was made to somehow obscure the wound.

 

No Parkland witness described anything matching that 'red thing' above the right eye.

slide_18.jpg

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Did you see what I said above about the optical illusion of the head tilted back? If that's true, then that alone could open a whole slew of mental suggestions, e.g. doctors thinking they saw cerebellum etc.

Oh Micah... doctors and other medical professional don't get confused like that. They'd know where the occipital bone is regardless of how the patient is oriented. I'm afraid they'd be amused by your suggestion.

As for how they could see the "blowout" wound on the back of the head... keep in mind that the wound was on the right rear of the head. It could easily have been seen from the right of the table, especially considering that brain matter was exuding from it. Also, note that the back of the head is not flat.

Dr. Robert McClelland got the closest look at the wound, as he was standing near the head. He observed the wound carefully and reported on it. He may have rotated the head a bit to the left get a better look.

Anyway, about twenty Parkland medical professionals reported seeing the wound, and all of them reported it to be on the right-rear of the head with the exception of one. Dr. Adolph Giesecke, in his WC testimony, claimed that the LEFT side of Kennedy's skull was completely gone! Dr. Giesecke, an anesthesiologist, said he was in the room just briefly.

Here is a useful list of head-wound witnesses, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. It lists numerically more than forty witnesses and how they testified seeing the wounds. This document goes into some detail as to how the witnesses stories changed as they learned that there was supposedly no back-of-head wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oh Micah... doctors and other medical professional don't get confused like that. They'd know where the occipital bone is regardless of how the patient is oriented. I'm afraid they'd be amused by your suggestion.

As for how they could see the "blowout" wound on the back of the head... keep in mind that the wound was on the right rear of the head. It could easily have been seen from the right of the table, especially considering that brain matter was exuding from it. Also, note that the back of the head is not flat.

Dr. Robert McClelland got the closest look at the wound, as he was standing near the head. He observed the wound carefully and reported on it. He may have rotated the head a bit to the left get a better look.

Anyway, about twenty Parkland medical professionals reported seeing the wound, and all of them reported it to be on the right-rear of the head with the exception of one. Dr. Adolph Giesecke, in his WC testimony, claimed that the LEFT side of Kennedy's skull was completely gone! Dr. Giesecke, an anesthesiologist, said he was in the room just briefly.

Here is a useful list of head-wound witnesses, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. It lists numerically more than forty witnesses and how they testified seeing the wounds. This document goes into some detail as to how the witnesses stories changed as they learned that there was supposedly no back-of-head wound.

From what I understand, a number of them later said that they could have been mistaken. If the head was tilted back, the wound could have looked like it was behind the ear, because it was, from their point of view. It would also be a pretty unusual kind of wound to have it on the top like that, so just the idea of having it on the back of the head is easier to understand to someone not doing an actual medical examination.

Also, was JFK still technically alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital? If that was true, could could a third or half of the brain be missing like that with the cerebellum being destroyed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I'm just going by what I remember from watching Doug Horne's six hour presentation a couple of times. Haven't read Inside The ARRB, If anybody Horne would've tallied up the witnesses who attest to a entry-like wound above the right eye. He might name every single one in his presentation. The story goes that a V-shaped incision was made to somehow obscure the wound.

 

No Parkland witness described anything matching that 'red thing' above the right eye.

slide_18.jpg

 

Ha! You know what? While it is true that I haven't read any witnesses mention a bullet hole above the eye, upon seeing this photo again I am reminded that I actually wondered myself if there had been a wound there! Because why would the surgeons have cut that triangular piece of scalp out like that? Unless to hide something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

From what I understand, a number of them later said that they could have been mistaken. If the head was tilted back, the wound could have looked like it was behind the ear, because it was, from their point of view. It would also be a pretty unusual kind of wound to have it on the top like that, so just the idea of having it on the back of the head is easier to understand to someone not doing an actual medical examination.

Also, was JFK still technically alive when he arrived at Parkland hospital? If that was true, could could a third or half of the brain be missing like that with the cerebellum being destroyed?

 

Sorry Micah, I just can't buy your theory. Doctors would not have been confused as to where the wound was. Especially not TWENTY of them!

As for some of the doctors changing their testimonies, that is easily explained. The official story had no hole down in the occipital bone. Parkland doctors who read about that and were concerned how their contradictory belief might affect their credibility, might have change their minds. Especially those who saw the BOH autopsy photo.

Actually, I just checked and almost all of those who changed their minds did so in 1992 when they were interviewed by Gerald Posner. (A xxxx and plagiarizer, BTW.) I'm pretty sure he showed them the autopsy photo showing an intact back of head. What could the doctors say upon seeing that?

But even so, a large majority of the Parkland  witnesses maintained their initial claims. The one with the best view, Dr. McClelland, never wavered. (And he was attacked for doing by a couple of the ones Posner interviewed.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Sorry Micah, I just can't buy your theory. Doctors would not have been confused as to where the wound was. Especially not TWENTY of them!

As for some of the doctors changing their testimonies, that is easily explained. The official story had no hole down in the occipital bone. Parkland doctors who read about that and were concerned how their contradictory belief might affect their credibility, might have change their minds. Especially those who saw the BOH autopsy photo.

Actually, I just checked and almost all of those who changed their minds did so in 1992 when they were interviewed by Gerald Posner. (A xxxx and plagiarizer, BTW.) I'm pretty sure he showed them the autopsy photo showing an intact back of head. What could the doctors say upon seeing that?

But even so, a large majority of the Parkland  witnesses maintained their initial claims. The one with the best view, Dr. McClelland, never wavered. (And he was attacked for doing by a couple of the ones Posner interviewed.)

Probably the main reason I have a hard time buying it is because the open-cranium photograph shows a very good candidate for the EOP wound in the skull, and such an orientation would place the majority or the missing bone (after the scalp was reflected) above the ears and more to the side. I mean, that spot really looks like a hole where you can see the edges of the bone reflecting off of the light. And that spot is elliptical like the autopsy report says.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Probably the main reason I have a hard time buying it is because the open-cranium photograph shows a very good candidate for the EOP wound in the skull, and such an orientation would place the majority or the missing bone (after the scalp was reflected) above the ears and more to the side. I mean, that spot really looks like a hole where you can see the edges of the bone reflecting off of the light. And that spot is elliptical like the autopsy report says.

Micah,

I am afraid you have been fooled by whoever it is pushing the idea that that dark spot on the open cranium photo is the EOP wound (or ANY wound, for that matter).

The autopsy report doesn't state that the EOP hole in the skull is elliptical. It states that the corresponding hole through the scalp is. Furthermore, the EOP wound is not described as a hole. It is described as, essentially, parts of a hole. Because the hole through the skull occurred between two pieces of skull bone... one piece being attached to the bulk of the skull and the other piece being a fragment of skull bone. The fragment had to be put in place in order to see the EOP hole.

So the hole (if that's what it is) that can be seen in the open cranium photo cannot be the EOP hole. It is not on the margin of bones.

BTW, here is what the autopsy report says about the EOP wound:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."  [Note: The side of the bone the beveling is on determines whether the hole is a wound of entrance or of exit.]

If you're having trouble believing me about the hole being partly on the edge of the skull bone and partly on a fragment that had to be put in place in order to see the EOP hole, there is further testimony that corroborates what I'm saying. For example, Dr. Boswell in his HSCA interview said:

"Regarding the head wounds, [Humes] said the entry hole [near the EOP] was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."


As for where the bulk of bone is missing from the skull, most of the missing bone became missing after the scalp was reflected. Because that is when the fragments were removed. Before the scalp was reflected, only a fragment from the right occipital region was missing. And that was found the day after the assassination in Dealey plaza. It is called the Harper fragment.

The story is a little more involved than this. But I'll leave it at that.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Harper fragment was not occipital bone. Some people who never saw the body thought it was initially at a time when the word on the street was the wound was on the back of the head. But they were wrong. The Harper fragment bears no resemblance to occipital bone in the locations claimed for it. Mantik conceded as much last year when he tried to claim Kennedy's Addison's disease just possibly could have caused a deformity of the bone, whereby the inner ridges were no longer apparent.

As far as the bullet entrance being on a piece of bone...which was brought into the autopsy. It seems readily apparent Boswell was confused about this, as this was originally the story regarding the exit.

Or are you saying both the entrance and the exit were on pieces brought into the autopsy, and the doctors forgot to say anything about the entrance being brought in for years and years afterwards?

P.S. Please cite any research you've conducted or uncovered suggesting the Parkland witnesses could not have confused the top of the head for the back of the head. I've done hundreds of hours of reading on this topic and everything I've found suggests such mistakes are not only possible, but happen all the time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Micah,

I am afraid you have been fooled by whoever it is pushing the idea that that dark spot on the open cranium photo is the EOP wound (or ANY wound, for that matter).

The autopsy report doesn't state that the EOP hole in the skull is elliptical. It states that the corresponding hole through the scalp is. Furthermore, the EOP wound is not described as a hole. It is described as, essentially, parts of a hole. Because the hole through the skull occurred between two pieces of skull bone... one piece being attached to the bulk of the skull and the other piece being a fragment of skull bone. The fragment had to be put in place in order to see the EOP hole.

So the hole (if that's what it is) that can be seen in the open cranium photo cannot be the EOP hole. It is not on the margin of bones.

BTW, here is what the autopsy report says about the EOP wound:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull."  [Note: The side of the bone the beveling is on determines whether the hole is a wound of entrance or of exit.]

If you're having trouble believing me about the hole being partly on the edge of the skull bone and partly on a fragment that had to be put in place in order to see the EOP hole, there is further testimony that corroborates what I'm saying. For example, Dr. Boswell in his HSCA interview said:

"Regarding the head wounds, [Humes] said the entry hole [near the EOP] was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."


As for where the bulk of bone is missing from the skull, most of the missing bone became missing after the scalp was reflected. Because that is when the fragments were removed. Before the scalp was reflected, only a fragment from the right occipital region was missing. And that was found the day after the assassination in Dealey plaza. It is called the Harper fragment.

The story is a little more involved than this. But I'll leave it at that.

Well, that idea would only work if the official medical evidence was faked. But could this concept of the EOP wound being on the edge of a larger void of bone be the source of confusion or misinterpretation? We do know that the skull was reconstructed leaving a hole in the back. If there was no rear blow-out to lie about, the doctors would have considered this reconstruction an extension of the EOP wound rather than something having to do with the large head wound. I mean, the doctors didn't say this in their WC testimony or most of their other testimonies, they almost always used language indicating the EOP wound was a separate, independent hole in the skull.

That same 8/17/1977 interview report says "Regarding the head wound, DR. BOSWELL said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head."

The ARRB skull marked by Humes has a void of skull almost everywhere but the entry wound.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The Harper fragment was not occipital bone.

The Harper fragment was identified as occipital bone in Dallas by three pathologists: Jack C. Harper, Gerhard Notebroom, and A.B. Cairns.

I'm not a pathologist , so there is nothing more I can say about this.

What part of the skull do you think the Harper Fragment came from?

Some people who never saw the body thought it was initially at a time when the word on the street was the wound was on the back of the head. But they were wrong. The Harper fragment bears no resemblance to occipital bone in the locations claimed for it. Mantik conceded as much last year when he tried to claim Kennedy's Addison's disease just possibly could have caused a deformity of the bone, whereby the inner ridges were no longer apparent.

As far as the bullet entrance being on a piece of bone...which was brought into the autopsy. It seems readily apparent Boswell was confused about this, as this was originally the story regarding the exit.

Well if Boswell was mistaken about the EOP wound, then he was consistently so. Because he repeated this supposed mistake more than once. And he convinced others that he knew what he was talking about.

But no, Boswell was not mistaken. Because what he said was corroborated by Dr Finck... twice! And what he said is consistent with the autopsy report.

Following are some relevant quotes:


Boswell, HSCA:

[speaking of the entrance wound ]  "....because this bone was all gone and actually the smaller fragment fit this piece down here -- there was a hole here, only half of which was present in the bone that was intact. and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface."

Note: Beveling on the interior surface indicates an entrance wound.


Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wounds [Dr Boswell] said the entry hole was only approximately half in evidence, the other half being part of the skull fragment which was brought in."


Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"


Boswell to Dr. Aguilar, 1994:

“The defect – the wound of entrance was at the base of that defect and the shelving on the inner surface of the bone was half on the intact portion of the skull and half on that fragment that we received from Dallas and replaced.”


Finck, WC:

"In the case we are discussing today, it was possible to have enough curvature and enough portion of the crater to identify positively the wound of entrance at the site of the bone."

Note: We know that Finck is talking about a fragment here. Because with a fragment, it needs to be big enough to see the curvature. The curvature tells the pathologist which side of the fragment is interior and which side exterior. Knowing that, the side the crater is on indicates the side the bullet exited. Note also that Finck talks about the portion of the crater on the fragment. The remainder of the crater is on the skull edge where the fragment fits.


Finck Letter to Gen. Blumberg, 1965:

"I also noticed another scalp wound, possibly of entrance, in the right occipital region, lacerated and transversal, 15 x 6 mm.. Corresponding to that wound, the skull shows a portion of a crater, the beveling of which is obvious on the internal aspect of the bone; on that basis, I told the prosecutors and Admiral Galloway that this occipital wound is a wound, of entrance."

Note: Again we see portion of a crater. The remainder of the crater is on the occipital fragment that fits there.


Finally, I need to remind you that what Boswell and Finck say (above) is consistent with the description of the EOP wound on the autopsy report. The word "fragment" isn't used. But the fact that the hole (and beveling) is said to be on the margins of the skull implies that the hole is shared by two pieces of skull bone. Otherwise how could the hole be on the margins?

Autopsy Report:

"Situated in the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 cm. laterally to the right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a lacerated wound [in the scalp] measuring 15 x 6 mm. In the underlying bone is a corresponding wound through the skull which exhibits beveling of the margins of the bone when viewed from the inner aspect of the skull." 


Or are you saying both the entrance and the exit were on pieces brought into the autopsy, and the doctors forgot to say anything about the entrance being brought in for years and years afterwards?

Yes, fragments were brought in for both the entrance and exit wounds. Either that or the autopsists just pretended they had the fragment for the entrance wound.

You need to understand, Pat, that the fragment in the occipital area could not officially exist. Because it indicated a shot from the front. Humes never talked about it. Finck apparently slipped up in his WC testimony and revealed it to anybody paying attention. Both Boswell and Finck talked about it for the HSCA.

P.S. Please cite any research you've conducted or uncovered suggesting the Parkland witnesses could not have confused the top of the head for the back of the head. I've done hundreds of hours of reading on this topic and everything I've found suggests such mistakes are not only possible, but happen all the time.

Common sense is on my side. Twenty Parkland doctors and nurses simply could not have all mistaken the location of the blowout wound, like you think they did.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh boy, some more of Lifton's crazy theories to keep things in the limelight and to hope to sell some more books.

How in the world could any of the so-called bad guys even know what the results were going to be that early in the game when the plane arrived from Dallas?

Even as late as early 1964 when Life magazine was going to run that article that Kennedy turned completely around, thus taking the throat shot, how could they have known what to cut up or out or into with the body the night of the autopsy three months earlier?

You can see the whole thing unfold on live TV when the plane arrives, it opens, the truck comes up and gets the coffin and the family, and then on to Bethesda. Jackie Kennedy never left the casket the entire time it was on the plane.

I remember reading his book back when I was a dumb 16-year-old and thinking, "Wow."  But now, thirty years later and seeing this case veer off into a cottage industry of ridiculous and weird theories, sanity and plausibility have convinced me that all of the craziness of squirreling away the body and removing 67% of the frames in the Z film and painted in blobs on other films and Jimmy Files being an assassin and Howard Hunt being either a tramp or a radioman or Greer shooting the president is right up there with the little green men on the moon that was never walked on by Neil Armstrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Oh boy, some more of Lifton's crazy theories to keep things in the limelight and to hope to sell some more books.

You got it. The conspiracy crap never ends, and it never will. Craziness sells. And David Lifton knows that better than anybody. After all....

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton. .... One could safely say that Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi

-----------------------------------------------------------

David-Von-Pein-Vs-David-Lifton-Logo.png

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

You got it. The conspiracy crap never ends, and it never will. Craziness sells. And David Lifton knows that better than anybody. After all....

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton. .... One could safely say that Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi

-----------------------------------------------------------

David-Von-Pein-Vs-David-Lifton-Logo.png

 

One of the only things holding together the official story is the cowlick entry. Of all the theories about what wounds Kenendy may or may not have had, that's the most unsubstantiated. You have the autopsy doctors on record, practically blurting out "No, you damn idiots, that red spot isn't the wound, enough with this nonsense, I know we're not perfect but we didn't all simultaneously make the worst mistake in our entire careers!". Nobody who saw the body recognizes the red spot as an entry wound, even with the artificially darkened versions with the red spot looking extra red. They all say that could be a drop of blood or a blemish related to the large head wound. The fracture on the X-ray is probably just a defect related to the large head wound as well. If you want to say it looks like an entry wound, then crazier things have happened. Nothing has to be faked or altered for that to be true.

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, Micah, would you agree that my following comment is true?....

Regardless of exactly where the entry wound was located on the President's head (whether it be high on his head near the cowlick or low on his head near the EOP), we know there was only one entry wound in JFK's head, and that entry wound (according to all three of the autopsy surgeons) was located in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.

Dr. James Humes talks in detail about JFK's wounds in 1967:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But, Micah, would you agree that my following comment is true?....

Regardless of exactly where the entry wound was located on the President's head (whether it be high on his head near the cowlick or low on his head near the EOP), we know there was only one entry wound in JFK's head, and that entry wound (according to all three of the autopsy surgeons) was located in the BACK of President Kennedy's head.

Dr. James Humes talks in detail about JFK's wounds in 1967:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOb3Z2UU9VUkdiSU0/view

 

If a bullet entered the original EOP location and bounced up to exit the top-right side of the head, the cerebellum would be more damaged. You yourself acknowledged this in another thread I remember. The damage according to the official records is consistent with two bullets entering the skull, one only barely damaging the cerebellum & brainstem and hitting the base of the skull. Is my understanding of this not correct? If a bullet enters the brain, does it not damage it?

Edited by Micah Mileto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×