Micah Mileto

The HSCA said that was just an artifact???

The HSCA literally accused the pathologists of lying about their memory... Of a bullet wound behind the President's ear.

Why couldn't an entering bullet have caused bruising of the strap muscles on the front of the neck? Also, we should be skeptical of the pathologists' description of the strap muscles. Perry and McClelland described cutting through the strap muscles, yet I do not think the pathologists made a single statement describing a surgical defect on the muscles They described bruising on the middle, but not scalpel cuts.

Wasn't there one point in the 90's where you could literally buy a set of prints by mail? Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But yes, it doesn't look like anybody has yet used modern technology to make the best quality scans of the prints (and negative film, if film is somehow available - BTW did James Fox ever have any film, or did he just have prints? I thought the story was, via Lifton who claimed to have actually met Fox, Kellerman handed Fox an extra set of prints and said "save a set of these for yourself, they'll be history some day" - was that a false cover story? Why are the bootleg photos apparently more cropped compared to the official photos? Both Fox and Crouch are dead).

Which book is the color side body view from?

Mantik just always seems to have the highest quality in his slide presentations posted to his website.

Where does one find such high-quality digital reproductions of the JFK photographs? Also, it's probably pointless to ask here, but is there any way that David Mantik and Doug Horne could have illegal possession of the ARRB's high-quality digital scans of the photos?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/pdf/lane_interviews/huber.pdf Prolly want to wayback machine that

The little curve on the side of the bone looks like a side-view of the actual EOP.

Humes told the WC that pieces of skull bone fell to the table as soon as they started examining the scalp. No bone fragment was said to have been found at Parkland hospital.

Nobody would take a dollar bill that's torn in half. I hope that didn't just get thrown in the trash - the two half bills or the partially-torn whole bill.

Lifton suspected that, since Jenkins and Paul O'Connor were related (cousins or something), Jenkins felt that he needed to "best" O'Connor in some way by expanding his story to add the part about the spine being severed.

Hi

James Curtis Jenkins reportedly did not say anything about the spine being disconnected in his long interviews with David Lifton before Best Evidence came out. When Lifton raised the possibility of head wound alteration to Jenkins, Jenkins said "That's pie in the sky stuff, David". But ever since he spoke to Harrison Livingstone, now the body arrived with the spine severed from the brainstem.

Where are the dollar bills and change?

Thanks! Wow, the SFM really been going through all of their oral histories trying to upload all of them.

Tom Robinson and Floyd Riebe's description of sawing specifically doesn't contract the official version. Humes told the Warren Commission that "virtually" no sawing of the skull was necessary, and he told the ARRB that "we had to cut sone bone as well".

Could that be a shadow from a curl of hair?

Yeah, but the scalp would be reflected to towards the left side of the head in the theory that the photos show the back of the head, so either way, the flap is in the same basic spot. Any specific part of the flap you think you can identify? I've spent a long time in the past staring at the photos trying to find one identifying marker.

What specific part of the bone flap looks the same in both images, in a way that precludes it still being a rear-head view?

Like what? Any anatomical markers? My suspicion now is that the skull photographs show the upper back of the head and the curved-looking protrusion off to the side in dim lighting is the external occipital protuberance. 2 medical professionals also identified a nipple off to the other side in the full-quality stereoscopic viewer - that would also support the idea of the photos showing the back of the head.

Pat changed his opinion since his 2009 videos - his website now says that he believes the skull photos show the UPPER back of the skull, not the lower back as suggested above.

Pockets of air trapped between tissues can create black spots on x-rays - those black spots do not necessarily mean missing tissue. https://www.ajronline.org/toc/ajr/154/3 https://www.ajronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2214/ajr.154.3.2106206

The official interpretation of the skull photographs, with an intact entry and exit hole in the intact skull cannot be true unless the some parts of the back of the skull were somehow separated and then placed back in after the brain removal procedure but before the taking of the photographs The proposed location of the beveled entrance and exit holes in the skull are only 5 inches apart. Therefore the HSCA apparently claimed that Kennedy's whole brain fit through a 5 inch-wide hole, and that is too small. In a brain removal procedure, not only is adequate room required to sever the brainstem and spinal cord, but also to delicately cut the tentorium cerebelli as well as the cranial nerves. From seeing several medical sources, it would seem like there are three ways you can cut a skull wide enough to remove the brain: a. a lot of the back of the skull is separated, b. a lot of the front of the skull is separated, c. a good portion of both is separated. The HSCA's intended geometry of this photograph apparently doesn't allow for enough room to lift or rotate the brain. Example: https://i.imgur.com/4nyJKxy.jpg The required minimal size for a proper skull cavity would envelop the official locations of the wounds in the photographs. I took this model skull and drew an outline representing the absolute maximum size skull cavity that could exist while still being consistent with the official HSCA interpretation of the autopsy skull photographs: https://imgur.com/a/9UMt94M Clearly, this is too small to lift or even rotate the official brain through. Removing a brain requires enough space to fit your hands underneath the brain. It really does seem incontrovertible that 5 inches is too small. The skull cavity in these images must be larger than the HSCA theorized. The only way the HSCA's interpretation of these photographs could be correct is if a portion of the back of the skull had been placed back in prior to photography.

delete