Jump to content
The Education Forum

Micah Mileto

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,006

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Micah Mileto

    Is anyone aware of this book? I was not.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    I was. I have not abandoned The Case for an Altered Throat Wound, it has only ballooned to 700 pages and I will be retitling it Coersion of Parkland Witnesses - with the sum total of all human knowledge on the possibility of funny business at Parkland. To think it was only a year ago that I told David my manuscript was 250 pages, and he said "I do not know exactly how you made the case for an altered throat wound into 250 pages, but I guess you will tell me".

     

    700 pages (single spaced office program pages) might seem like thoroughness would turn into unreadability, but I'm trying to allow the reader to tell which parts they can skim through if they so choose.

    Arlen Specter's "SBT" Notebook (DVP's Tongue-In-Cheek Version)

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    20 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

    Has any conspiracy theorist in history ever made this basic observation?....

    Boy, those assassins were sure a bunch of lucky sons of bitches when the guy who shot JFK in the throat from the front managed to hit Kennedy in exactly the right spot on his body so that (later on) the official investigators could utilize that entry wound in the throat as the point of exit for the SBT bullet. And then the multiple assassins got even luckier when the upper-back bullet and the bullet that entered the throat both decided not to exit the body and then both of those bullets vanished into puffs of smoke before either of those bullets (which obviously were still inside JFK's body when he was inside Trauma Room No. 1 at Parkland Hospital) could be seen by any non-conspirator.

    Can anyone truly believe that such incredible good fortune could possibly have existed amongst the (alleged) multiple shooters who were (allegedly) firing bullets at President Kennedy on 11/22/63?

    (And yet CTers have the gall to tell me that I am the one who believes in "Magic Bullets". Oy vey!)

     

    The EOP wound could also count as a potential shallow wound. There are also endless stories of extra recovered slugs, fragments, shell casings and bullet marks.

    The Zapruder Film and NPIC/Hawkeyeworks Mysteries

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    On 5/28/2024 at 12:05 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

    If I penalize you for both these lies, you will be issued 20 penalty points. In addition, you will receive another 20 points because another member (Keven) has asked you to remove these forum violations.

    The following is a table showing how many days of posting privileges a member loses based on their accumulated penalty points:

    10 Points  =  1 day
    20 Points  =  2 days
    30 Points  =  4 days
    40 Points  =  8 days

    Please remove these lies ASAP to save yourself from being penalized.

    Note that, should you restate what you've said in a way that indicates they are your interpretation or your opinion, doing so would effectively change your lies to factual statements, given that you are free to believe whatever you choose to believe... regardless of how intellectually dishonest it may be.

     

    This is why I say free speech is God, pretty much any level of censorship will always devolve into this.

    The Audio of the Parkland Conference Might Be Available Soon

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Micah Mileto

    On 3/19/2024 at 2:16 AM, David Von Pein said:



     

    This is David Lifton's comment from 1999:
     

    NOTE: This post is a revised and updated version of something I wrote more hastily earlier this evening and placed on the thread "Two Paradigms". Please put all comments and replies at this location. Sorry for the inconvenience of what may at first appear to be a "double post."

     

    * * *

     

    A decent question deserves a decent response, and so here goes in response to a question by Tony Pittman:

     

    David,

     

    I dont know how many TV and radio stations covered that press conference live or how many bought the rights to broadcast it but wouldn't each and every one of them have had the actual film or tapes of it, never mind transcripts?And they would certainly have had them before the Oval Office. Why on earth would CBS have to get them from the Oval Office?

     

    Tony

     

    RESPONSE: I don't know who may have broadcast that press conference. But as to who was in the room and may have recorded it, that's another question, and one which I will try to address here.

     

    I originally believed that the press conference was both recorded on audio AND on film (or video tape).

     

    But (as far as I know) no such audio tape or film (at least, film with sound) or video has ever turned up. Now, why is that?

     

    Around 1972, while spending several weeks at the National Archives, I found the following data which may explain just what is going on here.

     

    In the months following the assassination, all---and I mean all extant tapes from every single Dallas radio station---was collected by agents of the Secret Service (as I recall) and brought to Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma; and audio inventories created.

     

    By "inventory", I mean that each and every tape was individually listened to and its contents carefully listed. i.e., someone sat with a headset, listened to the tape, and typed up a numbered list of what subjects were on the tape. The entries were a couple of lines apiece, and in the format of a brief synopsis.

     

    Those inventories---along with the tapes---were (at some point) sent to the Wrren Commission, where they have a CD ("Commission Document") number (which I do not have handy). In a project that went on for a week or more, I sat in the office of archivist Les Waffen, examining each and every one of those inventories---there were hundreds of pages involved---and then listening with a headset to anything on the tapes that appeared interesting (and of course, back then, prior to the days of A and E and the History Channel, and the numerous documentaries that have been made on this case, just about everything seemed "interesting.")

     

    Those audio inventories made at Tinker AFB provided a comprehensive"table of contents" as to what went out over the air that day (and even that weekend); and the tapes themselves provide a wonderful window to the JFK assassination, and how it was covered by the media.

     

    Now let's go back to March, 1964, around the time the inventories were completed.

     

    Once the Government had those inventories it would have been easy to control the historical archive on this event. Specifically it would have been easy for anyone working through the Secret Service to then spot---and delete---the Perry press conference. And then delete same on the corresponding tape.

     

    In any event, and now coming to my main point: the inventories of Dallas radio station broadcasts ---as they were then called (and as I presume they still now exist at the National Archives)--- contain no entry for the Dallas doctors press conference; and, of course, the corresponding Dallas Radio Station tapes contain no such item, either.

     

    The inventories themselve run several hundred pages; and when you see them (they are a Warren Commission CD, i.e., "Commission Document") you will immediately realize the tremendous effort that went into this"media" project---conducted at a U.S. military base just a few months after the Dallas assassination.

     

    To create inventories as detailed as these means that, at Tinker Air Force Base (and within weeks of the assassination), there was a room with people wearing headsets poring over the Dallas radio tapes, one by one, listening to each tape, and then creating page by page snyopses of the content of each tape.

     

    My question: Who ordered this huge operation? Why was it done? Was it a politician (i.e., someone in the Johnson White House?); Was it someone in the U.S. Secret Service? Or did some Air Force General suddenly take an avid interest in what went out over the Dallas airwaves that day?

     

    My speculation: Somebody was looking for something; and my best guess is that its purpose was (a) to get a general view of what had gone out over the airwaves in connection with this event and (b) specifically to locate (and delete) the audio of that first (and very damaging, legally and historically speaking) press conference.

     

    In any event, the "Dallas Radio Tape Inventories" exist and I spent not weeks, but months, working on the project of carefully studying them, recording selected excerpts from the corresponding tape collection, transcribing my voluminous excerpts, and then joining all that data with the WFAA Index (also at the National Archives) and then adding to that still another data base: both the AP and UPI original wire copy.

     

    When all this stuff is joined together, and indexed by subject (which I did, in 1975, and it took months of hard work), the result is one or more 3 ring binders with a total of about 40 subsections, in which one can look up just about any subject of interest---JFK Medical data, what Wade said about the palmprint, etc.---and have a list of what media coverage there is of that item, at least insofar as I was able to locate such material; i.e., based on the Dallas radio station broadcasts, the WFAA collection, and the AP and UPI wire.

     

    This project, incidentally, only reinforced me view that if you falsify evidence at the source (i.e., falsify autopsy conclusions by altering wounds on the body) you can deceive an entire investigatory and media apparatus, which simply relays the information "downstream".

     

    But returning to the major point, and getting closer now to an answer to your specific question:

     

    What became immediately apparent to me, from the Tinker Air Force Base project, was how unusual that project was, and that its genesis was never investigated. i.e., no one on the Warren Commission----upon receiving all these materials---ever asked the Secret Service: Who ordered this done, and why? Why were you bringing radio station audio to Tinker Air Force Base?

     

    Anyway, from all this it became apparent to me that (a) no radio tape record of the Dallas doctors press conference existed (and this, as I have indicated, might be the reason why; i.e., any such item would have been located during the Tinker AFB project and then possibly deleted) and (b) no video (with sound) record existed either a similar operation took place with the video, or perhaps it was simply a case of no video cameras being in the room. (I have a vague memory of Gary Mack telling me that no video cameras were in the room.)

     

    Now, returning to the afternoon of NOvember 22, 1963, and the tumult at Parkland Hospital:

     

    This "Dallas doctors press conference" was treated ---at the time, and for administrative purposes---as a "White House press conference". Present was a stenographer, and the result was a transcript---but not a transcript that was released to the public, at least not at the time.

     

    But the only reliable extant record is that of the stenographer (and a picture of him, taking down the words of Perry is published, in BEST EVIDENCE).

     

    That "White House transcript" was physically located at the White House (and I was informed, back in 1976, by someone connected with the prduction of the four CBS specials---narrated by Walter Cronkite, and which were aired in June of 1967)---that the transcript was actually found in the Oval Office).

     

    If this is in fact the case, then at the time that the Secret Service was asked by the Warren Commission---this was sometime in the Spring of 1964---to please locate any record of the Perry Press conference, that record had already been transcribed and the transcript was resident at the White House (yet the Secret Service told the Warren Commission they could find no such item).

     

    As to its exact location: While it may have eventually ended up being placed in a White House press office file, I was assured that in 1967, when it was first discovered, it was located in the Oval Office, and was supplied by somenoe connected with the Johnson White House to a senior person connected with the four CBS TV project---this, again, in connection with their production of the very pro-Warren Report show back in June, 1967, which had to deal with the question of what exactly did Dr. Perry say at that very first meeting with the press?

     

    Now we have to go from 1967 over to around 1975.It was a copy of that transcript that I learned from other Warren Commission critics (Stamm, Meagher, et all) had been located---by Roger Feinman (then a low level CBS employee)--- at CBS, and it was then, after I found that out, and had telephone contact with Feinman, and found how difficult he was to deal with, that I then ordered a copy from the JFK and/or LBJ libraries.

     

    As posted previously to this group, I made no original discovery in this area. And I wanted to give Feinman credit for having found this item, but Feinman insisted that I claim (falsely, and to "protect" him) that it was actually found at the LBJ library. Of course, that was not the case. The existence of this transcript first came to light as the result of its being used as the basis for a portion of a book written in the aftermath of the four CBS-TV broadcasts---a 1967 book by Steve White titled "Should We Now Believe the Warren Report"---see Chapter 3 of Best Evidence for fuller discussion of all this). Anyway, in BEST EVIDENCE (see the section this in Chapter 3), I reported the truth---that the transcript was found at CBS and by a CBS News employee---but I left Feinman's name out of it, to avoid any legal

    problems from him, and so he could continue playing his silly games up at CBS (and it was only later that I learned what the fuss was really all about; i.e., that the CBS copy of this transcript represented a company document, a "working paper" as they say, and---being in dutch with CBS at the time, and in fact having been fired in 1975, and with his case up for a hearing, he wanted to look clean as a whistle, and not have it charged that he had made off with any of CBS News' working papers. In fact, as I learned at about that time (and from someone close to Feinman who then related it to me) Feinman had repeatedly bragged that he had a footlocker full of documents pertaining to the creation of the four 1967 programs, and which he had made off with during the course of his employment at CBS News, and which he thought was hot stuff and which was supposed to "blow the lid" off the JFK assassination. In particular, it was apparently Feinman's intention to document the manner in which CBS had been engaged in a cover-up.

     

    Hot stuff? Maybe it was and then again, maybe not. It was apparently not "hot" enough to make Feinman's alleged "book" a reality; although he talked about it quite a bit with his mentor, Sylvia Meagher, and she apparently had high hopes that "Feinman's book" would someday be a reality. But all that is another matter, and is not worth discussing here. Except to add that if you see Roger Feinman getting all sensitive as to whether the White House Transcript of the Perry press conference (formally numbered: 1347-C) came from the files of CBS News or whether it was first obtained (by Feinman) from the LBJ library, that is what the problem is and what the fuss is all about. Its not some minor historical footnote, in which Roger Feinman is suddenly oh-so-interested in historical accuracy. (And I certainly never said---in Best Evidence---that I discovered the document.) The underlying issue ---from Feinman's point of view---is "Feinman's Footlocker" (my quotes, let us be accurate. Tse. Tse.)

     

    Hope you found this enlightening. In writing all of the above, I took a brief look at certain journals I keep about my work, the dates I visited the National Archives, records of conversations I had with various third parties; and at my "media project" binders from 1975, and am amazed at the work I put into all of this some 25 years ago. And all on typewriters! No computers then.

     

    Let us call this post, informally: "Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Transcript 1347-C. . . but were Afraid to Ask."

     

    Perry-Clark-Press-Conference-11-22-63.jp

    More pics: https://jfkassassinationfiles.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/parkland-hospital-transcripts/

     

    https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/malcolm-perry-signed-jfk-fdc-kennedy-1874928248

     

    At least some parts of the conference were filmed, and there is at least 37 seconds of surviving silent footage of the time that Perry was speaking (Link). Photographs taken of the conference show multiple microphones in the room during Perry and Clark’s appearance (Link [link 2]). Clark and Perry told the Commission that there were “tape recorders” in the room (WC Vol. 6, pp. 18-27, Dr. William Kemp Clark’s 3/21/1963 testimony [text]), and Perry also mentioned there being “microphones” (WC Vol. 3, pp. 366-390, Perry's 3/30/1964 testimony [text]).

     

    JFK: What The Doctors Saw

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

     

    My curiosity was spurred on by realizing that both Sibert, in an interview with Law, and Knudsen, in his HSCA testimony, immediately recognized the TOP photo as what they remembered. 

    Well, did anyone else have this same response? 

    That is a strange comment considering how small they drew the hole in their ARRB interviews. David Lifton had a friend of Sibert named Wayne Cook or Wayne Cooke, and Sibert allegedly told Cook, "Wayne, there was no brain". When William Law first met the wife of, I think, Sibert, she said to Law "You do realize Kennedy's brains were blown out, don't you?".

    JFK: What The Doctors Saw

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

    That is probably a high quality scan of the HSCA's exhibit. But the thought occurs that they could have got it from the company that created the computer-enhanced images for the committee. Aerospace Corporation, if memory serves...

    P.S. While I have you, Micah. I'm hoping you can answer something which occurred to me the other day that has been bugging me ever since. To your knowledge, did any of the researchers who showed the Parkland witnesses the back of the head photo, show them the top-of-the-head photo? And if so, is there a record of their responses?

    The closest I've come to answering this is from TKOAP, in which Groden, after claiming the BOH photo is fake, says the TOH photo is legit. So I've gotta believed he showed this to people. But is there any record of what people actually had to say? 

    My curiosity was spurred on by realizing that both Sibert, in an interview with Law, and Knudsen, in his HSCA testimony, immediately recognized the TOP photo as what they remembered. 

    Well, did anyone else have this same response? 

    I think that all or most of the interviews by Bradlee and Bruzelius in 1981 just used the HSCA drawings. 1979 Livingstone interviews, I don't know. You might want to check videos of the witnesses being shows photos include the 1988-1989 TV specials, the 1992 Dallas conference, Lifton's research video and later edition afterwards, Coup in Camelot, Destiny Betrayed, What the Doctors Saw... maybe even some of the Sixth Floor oral histories. I'm sure it's some place in there.

    The Passing of Church Committee Witness Jim Gochenaur

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Micah Mileto

    Gochenaur didn't add the detail about Moore pulling a gun on him, or Moore showing him an autopsy photo, until after 2018, unless I'm missing something. Gochenaur didn't mention those things even while speaking with researchers within weeks of the event allegedly happening.

    Gochenaur said that he met Elmer Moore on 2/23/1970 when he attempted to call the FBI in hopes of obtaining for a high-quality copy of the Mary Moorman photograph to use for his artwork, and the representative he was speaking to directed him to Moore (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio). Gochenaur described going to Moore’s office in Seattle on 5/7/1971 and speaking to him in person (Grassyknoll.us, The Jim Gochenaur Interviews, 2020; CAPA, Nov. 2018 event, The Last Witnesses – Revealing The Truth; JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio). Gochenaur, in a 11/4/1970 letter to Harold Weisberg describing his interactions with Secret Service agent Elmer Moore, wrote “...Then he said something that did surprise me to no end. He said he and others studied the photos of President Kennedy's head wounds and that nothing was out of the ordinary?!? He told me that the photos could not prove anything worthwhile. I asked him about having competent medico-legal personnel take a look at the photos. again, he said something to the effect, "It wouldn't prove anything". I believe that agent Moore was either lying to me or that the Warren Report statements are a fraud as to the status of the autopsy photos. Could you make a comment on this?” (Link). In another letter from Gochenaur to Weisberg, dated 12/11/1970, it reads “After talking for some time on the value of the Mooreman Photo with Moore I asked Him why no one was allowed to view the autopsy photographs. Mr. Moore said, "I did." The following paragraph is an attempt at what Moore followed this remark with verbatum. "Lots of people saw em. Look, let me ask you something, what would prints prove anyway. They couldn't give you angles or anything like that. We looked over that rail yard, or bullets, nothing. If there were others shooting at him, where did they go? Do you know Garrison? Well, he thinks a guy popped up and hit him with a 45 from a sewer. Look, I must have seen the zapruter film a thousand times---nothing, nothing at all. We saw several movies, lots of photos, and there just isn't anything to prove from them. Pictures can't tell you as much as you seem to think."” (Link [link 2]). In a letter to dated 5/10/1971, Gochenaur wrote a list of details on when he says Elmer Moore showed him his personal briefcase of pictures and documents on the assassination, which included “Rough handwritten notes on interviews” with, among others, Dr. Perry and Dr. Humes. Humes’ name has an asterisk after it, noted as “means he wouldn't let me read them” Gochenaur wrote of Moore meeting Perry “A. No date on notes: (Moore said it was the 28th or 29th of Nov.) B. Moore brought with him Humes report. C. Moore told me several times he did not "twist Perry's arm", which leads me to believe he might have. D. Perry said he did not see a back wound. E. Perry did not observe a hole near the top, front of right ear. F ) Moore drew "rough renderings" of discription of head wounds”, then on the letter is a drawing of a right-profile view of a head with a large circular wound above the ear, with an arrow pointed to it labeled “missing area”, as well as small wounds in the lower back of the head, upper back, throat, as well as a spot on the forehead pointed at by an arrow labeled “"wound" near left eye. Right eye swollen”. Below the drawing it reads “Moore showed Perry drawings and "other visual aids" the back wound from Humes work. Moore wrote up a long memo to the Commission. The basic summary of which was: 1. The wound can not indicate conclusively the angles of the shots. 2. The direction of the shots are above and behind. 3. The photos of wounds likewise can not conclusively give angles - (he left out direction). according to Moore, Warren told him that its best just not to talk conspiracy: we just don't have anything”... “Moore doesn't know, of course, I'm writing to you. His motives for letting me peek into his horror chest is unknown. I sense a guilt thing"” (Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James/Item 12 [link 2]).

     

    In 2021, James Gochenaur claimed that Elmer Moore actually showed him an autopsy photograph (Black Op Radio, show #1071, 12/2/2021 [audio, 31:33]; JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio) – as opposed to his earlier statements where he described just being told of the pictures by Moore. When interviewed by James DiEugenio, Gochenaur said “...And then he showed me—another shock—he showed me a color photograph, 8 x 10, of President Kennedy in autopsy I assume. It was different from Mr. Groden’s pictures in that this side of the face, the right side of the face, the eye was swollen. And it was black and blue”. When DiEugenio replied “I don’t remember ever seeing an autopsy photo like that, that you described”, Gochenaur said “I don’t like to talk about it. I’ll talk about it with you” (JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, 2022 book by James DiEugenio). There doesn’t seem to be any known prior instance of Gochenaur claiming that Moore showed him an autopsy photo – and in a 5/10/1971 letter to Weisberg, Gochenaur gave a detailed list of materials that he said Elmer Moore showed him, and autopsy images were not mentioned (Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James/Item 12 [link 2]).

    JFK Revisited: The gift that keeps on giving

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Micah Mileto

    Dealey Plaza and Oswald framing stuff would be stale to the public by now - and doesn't tantalise the urge for intrigue. It should be about Oswald's defection, Mexico City, Jack Ruby, stuff like that. No Nagell, Prouty, or Cherami please. How many people nowaways are even aware of Jack Ruby's confessions, in public and private? I feel like some of you researchers are so deep in the XXXXX that ya'll forget to cover the basics when presenting to a new audience.

    VICTORY for the credibility of Parkland nurse Audrey Bell

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Micah Mileto

    On 9/28/2023 at 7:30 PM, Pat Speer said:

    While this lends credence to Bell's claim she was in the room, it damages her ultimate claim Perry showed her the head wound, and that it was low on the back of the head. Her discussion of trauma rings true, however, and offers us an insight as to why her story changed. 

    Thanks for sharing. 

    Robert Grossman, Giesecke, and Dulaney also spoke of someone in the room, possibly Kemp Clark, that turned the head to show the wound. This is discussed in High Treason 1.

    Lone Nut arguments that reject the Single Bullet Theory?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

    The funny thing is: I read it carefully cover to cover and, without checking, I actually now forget how he accounts for just three shots doing all the damage WITHOUT the SBT (!). Perhaps Pat Speer will know/remember. 

    Have you heard of any Lone Nut researchers suggesting that Oswald hit Connally after z224? In a video of the 2018 mock trial where a lecturer showed a preview of the new 3D model, somebody in the audience agrily corrected John Orr when he stated that the official story requires the SBT to work. Are you able to point me in the direction of anybody who ever explained such theories?

×
×
  • Create New...