Jump to content
The Education Forum

Micah Mileto

Members
  • Posts

    1,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Micah Mileto

  1. Some witnesses described a big long flame shooting out if the barrel, apparently too long to be consistent with the type of gun and ammo in the official story. Other than that, the "blanks" thing is largely based on logic rather than direct evidence.
  2. In the ARRB interview, or in another interview? BTW this is from the ARRB interview: I'd like to start out -- and that's the last major part that I hope to play in this discussion. I'd like to start out, if we could -- and maybe just start with Dr. Jones and then just go down the room -- of first where you were in trauma room No. 1 and what kind of view you had of President Kennedy in trauma room No 1, Dr. Jones. DR. JONES: I was on his left side below the arm looking to my right I could easily see the neck wound I could not see in much detail the posterior wound, but did not see any flap of skull or anything laying out to the right side I saw relaxation of the facial tissues & perhaps of the hair, and I remained on the President's right side during the entire resuscitation attempt. MR. GUNN: Did you ever go around and observe the left side? DR. JONES: Left side. Excuse, I was on the left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. DR. JONES: Was I saying right side? MR. GUNN: So all of your view was of the left side? DR. JONES: All my view was from the President's left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. Did you ever go around and observe the right side of the - DR. JONES: I did not go around to the right side. MR. GUNN: Could you observe any posterior wound on -- of the head from the left side where you were? DR. JONES: At one point after we had completed the insertion of the chest tubes, IV, and tracheotomy, I looked up over the top of the President's head and from that view was all that I saw. But with him flat on the table, I could not appreciate the size of that wound but did not see a lot of skull or brain tissue on the table, some maybe, but not just a tremendous amount and certainly did not see a flap turned on the right side. MR GUNN: Were you yourself able to identify any cerebellum or cerebrum tissue on the table? DR. JONES: If there was I thought -- from my vantage point, I thought that it was a very small amount. MR. GUNN: And were you able to identify one form of brain tissue versus another? DR. JONES: No - MR GUNN: Okay. DR JONES: - but did see the very small wound which I thought was an entrance wound to the head. That was pretty clear.
  3. Come on, this dude dies and 1 month later his website no longer works? That website was actually useful. I know McAdams in the search results has confused new truth-seekers in the past, but his website was good for some things.
  4. Old link down. New link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/ Version 2.0 coming soon too.
  5. Is there any primary source on that Dr. Curtis interview you can share at this time, audio, video, notes, anything?
  6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynE73TpKO9k Dr. Ronald Jones is still alive and kicking, I only wish somebody would've asked him about the temple wound information Jones mentioned in his ARRB interview. Dr. Jones certainly appears to believe the official story - why then did he speak of a left temple wound to the ARRB?
  7. A Lie Too Big To Fail doesn't get deep enough into the report that the Police found at least one nail inside of what was previously thought to be a bullet hole. Just searching "Nail" on the RFK Mary Ferrel web page will show many documents not acknowledged in the book.
  8. this story is vaguely mentioned by Dr. McClelland in this clip, 52:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSFF8CzJC3g
  9. Top 9 problems with Johnny Brewer's story: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25901-two-oswalds-in-the-texas-theater/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-403276
  10. I also noticed how Kritzberg's article came out with word-for-word duplicate sentences compared to the reporting of other newspapers, despite claiming an exclusive source in the form of a phone call with Dr. Perry.
  11. From UPI, 11/30/1963, Battle to save president was futile, doctors knew by Bryce Miller: Baxter turned to turned to Dr. Charles Crenshaw standing beside him. "Take her to a lounge where she can lie down," he instructed. He wanted Mrs. Kennedy to take a sedative. Crenshaw took her arm and turned her toward a small anteroom. Mrs. Kennedy turned back. "Please, I would like to stay here," she said. [...] More doctors rushed to Kennedy's side. There were 15 in all. Besides Perry, Carrico and Baxter, there were Drs. William Kemp Clark, chairman of neurosurgery; Robert McClelland, assistant professor of surgery; M. T. Jenkins, chairman of anesthesiology; Fouad A. Bashour, associate professor of internal medicine; Adolph Giesecke, clinical associate in anesthesiology; Paul C. Peters, assistant professor urology; Dr. Ronald C. Jones, senior resident in surgery; Charles Crenshaw, surgery resident; Gene Akin, anesthesiology fellow; Don Curtis, oral surgery resident, and Kenneth Salyer, surgery resident.
  12. It would be cool if a video essayist made an actually unbiased video about the history of the truthers. It's not every day that a group of internet conspiracy theorists legitimately embarrass the U.S. Government's own scientists. For example, digital scans of the original blueprints of WTC 7 were acquired via FOIA, and those showed shear studs securing the girders and other structural elements which NIST themselves admit to taking out of their computer model. They just pretended like those parts of the building never existed, even though there is historical evidence that they did, and the only way to study WTC 7 is by starting with the historical evidence.
  13. 😀 Afterwards will you be putting all of these into one file?
  14. More direct evidence of a cover-up. From ABC's 20/20, April 1992: with Dr. Charles Crenshaw and Dr. Charles Baxter: Q: It seems almost incomprehensible that a team of highly intelligent, highly-trained doctors could be standing over the President of the United States and see wounds that, you say, came from the front, and yet the official government story is it came from the back, and wait this long to break the silence. Crenshaw: Intimidation, fear, and career-mindedness. Q: Those are the factors? Crenshaw: Exactly. But again, you have to understand the time in 1963. The people that were with this country were telling you what to do, how to do it, and I think the feeling was we went along to get along. Narrator: Now semi-retired, Dr. Crenshaw has written a book breaking nearly thirty years of silence. Q: Could these what you call "conspiracy of silence" had been out of plain old fasioned patriotism among the doctors? Crenshaw: No question about that. And Dr. Baxter had wanted no one to say anything because he was worried about commercialisation. Dr. Charles Baxter: Well, I made a statement that any one of us in the school or in the hospital that ever made a dime off of anything they said about the assassination, I would try to see that their medical career was ruined. Q: You felt that strongly? Dr. Baxter: Yes. I don't know how many emotions were in that statement, but I felt like it was one that needed to be said. Dr. Crenshaw: That's the reason I waited so long. I waited until I felt I'm at the end of my career, I don't fear my peers 'cause I think they believe it too.
  15. From the online journal Eve's Magazine, 2013, 50 Years from that Fateful Day in Dallas... by Martin J. Steadman: The meeting with Dr. Perry occurred the evening of December 2. Fred and I were joined by Stan Redding, a first-class crime reporter for the Houston Chronicle. I’d taken a liking to Redding as soon as I met him; he was my kind of reporter. Speculation and suspicion and insinuation were never part of his game. He was interested in facts, only facts. But he was a keen political observer as well as a seasoned police reporter. It was no secret in Texas that the President and the First Lady had come to their state because Texas polls showed Kennedy was in trouble for re-election in 1964. Arizona GOP Senator Barry Goldwater held a comfortable lead, despite the fact Vice-President Lyndon Johnson was a Texan. And the Goldwater edge in the polls also applied to other states in the South and Southwest at that time. Stan Redding spoke softly when he allowed an opinion, but I’ll never forget what he said: “Those three bullets shot Barry Goldwater right out of the saddle.” He was noting that Texan Lyndon Johnson was now the President, and Senator Goldwater would be matched against a man of the South in the new polls. How bright was Redding’s political crystal ball in November 1963? Johnson led Barry Goldwater in the first wave of new national polls, and Johnson buried Goldwater in November 1964, in a landslide. Our meeting with Dr. Perry was after dinnertime at his home, and I remember a little girl playing with her toys on the living room floor as the three reporters and her father talked about how he tried to save a President’s life. She was oblivious to the gravity of the conversation, playing quietly with her toys throughout. Dr. Perry had become a controversial figure in the assassination story--to his dismay. With the President lying on his back on a gurney, fighting for breath in his dying moments, Dr. Perry tried to create an air passage with an incision across what he believed to be an entrance wound at the front of Kennedy’s neck. The President was pronounced dead soon after, but the doctor’s incision at the throat had forever foreclosed a conclusion that the wound was an entrance wound or an exit wound. Late that Friday afternoon, the Parkland Hospital officials held a news conference for the hundreds of reporters who had descended on Dallas. Dr. Perry spoke of his efforts to save the President and his belief that his incision was across an entrance wound. The controversy didn’t erupt until government officials in Washington later said all three shots at the President had been fired from a sixth floor window of a building behind the President’s limousine. So little more than a week later, three reporters were speaking quietly to the surgeon at the center of the dispute. As far as I know, it was the first and only such private interview with Dr. Perry. None of us in his living room that night took out a notebook or a pencil. It was a conversation with a clearly reluctant surgeon who had done his best in a crisis and who had agonized about it since. Dr. Perry said he believed it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean, with no edges. In the course of the conversation, he was asked and answered that he had treated hundreds of gunshot victims in the Emergency Rooms at Parkland Memorial Hospital. At another point he said he was a hunter by hobby, and he was very familiar with guns and ammunition. He said he could tell at a glance the difference between an entrance wound and an exit wound with its ragged edges. But he told us that throughout that night, he received a series of phone calls to his home from irate doctors at the Bethesda Naval Hospital, where an autopsy was being conducted, and the doctors there were becoming increasingly frustrated with his belief that it was an entrance wound. He said they asked him if the doctors in Dallas had turned the President over and examined the wounds to his back; he said they had not. They told him he could not be certain of his conclusion if he had not examined the wounds in the President’s back. They said Bethesda had the President’s body and Dallas did not. They told Dr. Perry he must not continue to say he cut across what he believed to be an entrance wound when there was no evidence of shots fired from the front. When he said again he could only say what he believed to be true, one or more of the autopsy doctors told him they would take him before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on what they were certain was otherwise. They threatened his license to practice medicine, Dr. Perry said. When he was finished, there was only one question left. I asked him if he still believed it was an entrance wound. The question hung there for a long moment. “Yes,” he said. Ultimately Dr. Perry appeared as a witness before the Warren Commission. In substance he testified that he realized he had no proof the bullet hole in the President’s neck was an entrance wound, and he conceded that the Bethesda doctors who autopsied the President would know better because they had all of the forensic evidence and he had but a fleeting recollection. I can’t fault Dr. Perry for his testimony before the Warren Commission. Surely it occurred to him there was no point in holding out for a belief that couldn’t be proved. And just as surely, this 34-year-old surgeon with an exemplary record and a brilliant future knew his life would be forever shadowed by conspiracy theories that relied heavily on a bullet fired from the front. He testified only as he most certainly had to testify. But I’ll never forget what he said to three reporters that night in Dallas. The interview in Dr. Perry’s living room was the most memorable moment, but there were other disturbing bits and pieces of information from my time in Dallas.
  16. Not denying any of that. But, there are more people on forums actively discussing the evidence surrounding JFK on 11/22/1963 than there are for 9/11.
  17. There used to be quite the number of Youtube videos on Vegas, but then Google was Google and a lot of that content is either lost or forgotten now. Blackstone Intelligence did this amazing short film interviewing homeless people in the underground Vegas tunnels, but that was deleted.
  18. Why does the JFK assassination seem to STILL TO THIS DAY have a robust community of people who research and discuss the primary sources and hone their skills, while it seems like very few people in the world are spending an equal time on other issues like 9/11, etc? Non-JFK conspiracy theories popular today are mostly just style over substance.
  19. Hard seeing some of the woke crowd making fun of truthers, as if the drama surrounding 9/11 truth is anything compared to the painful situation with qanon or the anti-vaxxers.
  20. I touched on that, here is a link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/ parts 8-27 deal with the claim that the pathologists couldn't identify a bullet wound in the throat until after the autopsy.
  21. Besides the KAK article, is there a primary source for the following quote: But it was not just Moore—and it was not just a couple of weeks later. As Horne stated during that FFF conference, Nurse Audrey Bell testified that Perry told her he was getting calls that evening directing him to alter his testimony.(DiEugenio, p. 169) This is now backed up by a startling piece of evidence surfaced by author Rob Couteau. Martin Steadman was a reporter at the time of the JFK assassination. Couteau discovered a journal entry by Martin that is online. Steadman was stationed in Dallas for several days after the assassination gathering information. Some of it got in print and some of it did not. From all indications, the following did not. One of the witnesses he spent some time with in Dallas was Malcolm Perry. Steadman was aware of what Perry had said at the press conference about the directionality of the neck wound. Steadman wrote that, about a week after the assassination, he and two other journalists were with Perry in his home. During this informal interview, Perry said he thought it was an entrance wound because the small circular hole was clean. He then added two important details. He said he had treated hundreds of patients with similar wounds and he knew the difference between an exit and entrance wound. Further, hunting was a hobby of his, so he understood from that experience what the difference was. And he could detect it at a glance. Steadman went on to reveal something rather surprising. Perry said that during that night, he got a series of phone calls to his home from the doctors at Bethesda. They were very upset about his belief that the neck wound was one of entrance. They asked him if the Parkland doctors had turned over the body to see the wounds in Kennedy’s back. Perry replied that they had not. They then said: how could he be sure about the neck wound in light of that? They then told him that he should not continue to say that he cut across an entrance wound, when there was no evidence of a shot from the front. When Perry insisted that he could only say what he thought to be true, something truly bizarre happened. Perry said that one or more of the autopsy doctors told him that he would be brought before a Medical Board if he continued to insist on his story. Perry said they threatened to take away his license. After Perry finished this rather gripping tale, everyone was silent for a moment. Steadman then asked him if he still thought the throat wound was one of entrance. After a second or so, Perry said: yes, he did. What is so remarkable about this story is that it blows the cover off of the idea that the autopsy doctors did not know about the anterior neck wound until the next day. Not only did they know about it that night, they were trying to cover it up that night. What "journal entry" found online? This is the part of the case I've been trying to gather everything on. I'm trying to make a 2.0 of the "discussing torso wounds" thing I made before., and I'm trying to make an ultimate medical evidence folder to share online.
  22. Stone's movie "World Trade Center" may or may not have snuck in references to explosives being used in the collapse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPCt2BBqR2k
  23. Are you aware of this interesting bit from Gorge Michael Evica's 1992 video Research Vs Witness: Questioning The Facts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKp88UKvaP0&t=100m22s George Michael Evica: I have never talked about forgeries, Francis X. O'Neill. Only you have talked about forgeries and doctored photographs. O'Neill: Because I heard you say it, George. George: Not on this show, Francis. O'Neill: Probably not on this show. George: Nor on any other show. O'Neill: Probably- probably up in New Hampshire when we were discussing afterwards- George: We talked about doctored photos- oh, I also- Francis: Ohh... George: Want to talk about afterwards, Francis? That you talked to six lawyer- interns at the Franklin Pierce Law Center and you admitted there was a decoy ambulance to them when I was standing next to you? O'Neill: Did I say that? George: Yes you did. Francis: (inaudible) George: But that was off camera, Francis. O'Neill: Do you have it on record, George? George: Do you have it on record, Francis? O'Neill: No, I have nothing on record- George: Now can I ask you the question again?
×
×
  • Create New...