Micah Mileto

What genius decided to make legal weed more expensive than illegal weed? Weed grown tax-free with plenty of American land would be as cheap as corn. Cheap legal weed would be like a fire extinguisher to the cartels. Why are you choosing to take every opportunity to blame freedom and make excuses for taking away people's freedom?

Do you think that legalizing all drugs in the United States would strengthen the cartels south of the border? Even if that were somehow true, I would simply say that the problem should be blamed on the government. Who's the reason why legal weed isn't cheaper than corn? Drugs being illegal is a holocaust. Holocausts don't heal overnight.

I blame the immoral actions of the cartels on the freedom-hating governments and peoples who choose to keep drugs illegal. If drugs are ever legalized, it will take decades or centuries for society to reverse the damage caused by drugs being illegal.

Also, I don't think it should be legal to force children to learn Hebrew. In fact, I believe that a large portion of school is just pointless child abuse, financial abuse and slavery because most of the information taught at school is not useful to the careers of average people. How is it fair that I make enough money to afford an apartment, and yet the average middle schooler works more than twice as hard as me? Child labor never ended, it just got stupider.

That's none of your business. I don't want the government to decide what drugs go into my body. I also believe in the right for any adult to buy cyanide for the purpose of killing themself - so clearly I am not going to think addictive drugs should be illegal. I think you have the attitude of a freedom hater - the definition of a freedom hater is somebody who is always willing to accept unprovable arguments in favor of taking away people's freedom, but never willing to use unprovable arguments in favor of giving people more freedom. It is conceivable that the state could still exist even if the addiction rates got higher as a result of drugs being illegal (and you can't prove that they would). I believe in only sacrificing enough freedom to result in the minimum amount of safety necessary to protect the existence of the state - not necessarily the people inside of the state (although sometimes both interests overlap). Drugs being illegal is why I think that literally all police figures are bad people on a personal level. Again, I am not even bothering to explore the basic arguments for why legalizing drugs would lower addiction rates. And you probably already understand that legalized drugs would lower the accidental overdose rates.

Pat, I never said that I believe freedom has infinite importance, or that safety has zero importance. All I said was that freedom is more important than safety. Think of freedom as being worth a dollar and safety as being worth a dime - a truckload of dimes is not worth less than one dollar. I believe that my position in naturally resistant to strawman arguments (like all murder being legalized) because a minimum level of safety is required for a state to enable the it's citizens to enjoy other kinds of freedoms. Compare that to somebody who would claim to believe that safety is more important than freedom - a state could technically exist without any freedom at all, so their position does not have any naturally built-in requirment of freedom.

On your "lives ruined by heroin dealers" - you seem to be conflating cause and responsibility. The concept of responsibility is a subjective political opinion, and is often used as a mere a construct of practicality, not a perfect philosophical way to judge morality. "Cause" could be something like somebody who had a crime committed against them by somebody who thought their skimpy clothing was a motivation for their crime - but you can see how obviously horrible it would be to conflate cause and responsibility in that situation. Another example: a horrific car accident happens shortly after somebody legally passed somebody else on a road - the passing of the car could have been a necessary part of the chain of events, but it would be wrong to hold them responsible in the court of law or the court of public opinion. Personally, I blame the government for "lives ruined by heroin", not the dealers, because the government is responsible for drugs being illegal, and legal drugs certainly could have changed the situation. That is my subjective opinion on responsibility.

https://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/TracesOfWitnessTampering/TracesOfWitnessTampering.htm

Just because I said that I believe in the principal of liberty-over-security doesn't mean that I could not make the argument that legalizing all drugs would also result in more security. You seem to believe that legalizing all drugs would increase the addiction rates. You cannot actually prove that. I strongly suspect that legalization would actually lower addiction rates. And basic logic shows that legalization would lower accidental overdoses to virtually zero. Somebody who is intending to try recreational drugs could consult a medical professional on how to avoid accidental overdose and addiction. If heroin were sold at Walgreens, that heroin would be of a consistent purity. Also, a medical professional could suggest that patients try other kinds of less-dangerous drugs before they go trying harder drugs. There are plenty of drugs that bring euphoria that don't have the same level of danger as heroin. I think the fact that we don't have such safeguards is the fault of the government, not dealers. I cannot absolutely prove my ideas, but nobody can disprove them either, and I think that sometimes, the simple fact that one cannot disprove an idea is enough to embrace it because the benefit of the doubt should be given to freedom (negative rights against authority figures forcing their will onto you). And, as I just said to Pat, If one does not subscribe to the principal of liberty over security, then they may as well admit to not believing in any liberty at all. This is because there is no shortage of important-sounding arguments in favor of increasing security at the expense of liberty. EDIT: Also, I am only a libertarian socially, fiscally I believe in state communism.

If one does not subscribe to the principal of liberty over security, then they may as well admit to not believing in any liberty at all. This is because there is no shortage of important-sounding arguments in favor of increasing security at the expense of liberty.

Fun fact: plea bargains are a form of torture. This torture is being justified by the incorrect notion that the Justice system can be trusted to find the truth.

There is also no solid information that explains who developed the camera film, or how the images from the positive camera film were copied over onto negative film. BTW this may be one issue with the autopsy photos that people are overlooking - the prints and negatives are photographs of photographs, only the positives are said to be the original film coming from the autopsy. The prints in the official collection of evidence have an inferior picture quality because they come from the negatives (or "internegatives"). When the Parkland doctors were shown the autopsy photographs at the National Archives in 1988, they were only shown the inferior-quality prints. A new set of prints should be made from the positive film (unless that's already been done).

All drugs should be legalized. I believe in liberty over security. As far as I'm concerned, arresting a heroin dealer is no different from arresting Anne Frank.

Basic logic can debunk the field of psychology, in the same way that basic logic can debunk religion without the need to spend years studying it. For example: A. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. B. The human mind is the most extraordinary phenomenon in the known universe. C. The study of the human mind is almost entirely based on witness evidence. D. Witness evidence is unreliable and should not be considered extraordinary evidence. This is the kind of fire that can not be put out by any team of PHD psychologists. Even in your own comment there is a sign that psychiatry is bunk. You admit that you basically disagree with half of all people in your field, and all mental healthcare workers will agree with the basic notion that a person might need to switch between counselors to find which one suits them. This makes an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Psychiatry is a cult. A cult that steals from, manipulates, kidnaps, tortures and poisons people.

Psychology is not a real science, it is a religion.

No, I only exchanged like two emails with him. I only told him that I was working on "The Case for an Altered Throat Wound", which was then 280 pages, and he expressed surprise that the subject would warrant so many pages. I then asked him if he had any trouble finding people who were willing to digitize his collection to files, to which he replied no.

https://radiopublic.com/night-fright-show-85RoMx/s1!4518b There are 3 new witnesses who Lifton felt were credible, who claimed to have seen an incident where Jackie tried to get out of the car further down the highway.

Who will take the burden of becoming the Malcolm Blunt of David Lifton's files?

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-18c-reason-to-doubt Secondly, a 6-11-80 article on Livingstone by Maureen Williams found in the Bangor Daily News suggests Livingstone was not a healthy camper. I know this seems a cheap shot, but stick with me here. This article was on Livingstone at a time virtually no one knew who he was, written in his local paper. The article, it follows, was his idea, or at least written with his full cooperation. And yet, look what it reveals: "The federal government has stipulated that certain sensitive material concerning the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 cannot be released to the public and media until the year 2039. One man who claims to be living in secrecy and fear for his life in eastern Maine, claims to have gotten some of that material through an underground source with connections in the Pentagon. Harrison Edward Livingstone, one of hundreds of private citizens who are involved in researching the assassination, carries his completed but rough manuscript of his book with him wherever he goes...He has kept on the move in recent years in several states, because he said he believes he's a 'hunted man.' In one of those states, he says, his car was fitted with an explosive device. In July 1979, a plane was to carry a team of reporters of the Baltimore Sun to Dallas, where they were to rendezvous with Livingstone. The plane was accidentally rammed by a jet fuel delivery truck on the airport apron. Livingstone says this was no accident. The incident caused the occupants to be confined in the plane for three hours, but what is stranger is that neither the newspaper or Livingstone could locate the investigative team for two days. In July and November 1979, the Baltimore Sun published two stories, containing purported new information and a lot of speculation, which Livingstone claims to have stimulated. 'But nobody read it...the wire services probably didn't pick it up, and one of the stories ran on a Sunday features page,' Livingstone said. Livingstone is convinced that some of the government's official autopsy photographs have been forged by an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency so they would be consistent with the so-called 'single-bullet, single-gunman' theory. Livingstone said that on July 30, 1979, he traveled to Dallas where he interviewed various physicians who attended the dying president at Parkland Hospital. In tape-recorded and transcribed interviews, Livingstone said, medical doctors Adolph Giesecke, Robert McClelland, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Fouad Bashour, Jacqueline Hunt, and Marion Jenkins, indicate that the official government photo shown them may have been fake, because it shows an entrance wound in the occipital-parietal section of the president's head. Livingstone says they all told him that when the president was wheeled into Parkland's emergency room for initial medical treatment, the wound they saw in the back of his head looked like an exit wound...Robert Groden of Hopelawn, N.J., a photographic consultant to the House Assassinations Committee, said 'My visual inspection of the autopsy photos and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs..."

Throwback to a classic long David Lifton post: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17752-the-forward-head-movement-an-illusion/?do=findComment&comment=226765 You are absolutely correct, DVP, and that is why, if you argue with DiEugenio in this fashion, you will defeat him every time. of course, your position is entirely false, however, because the debate really comes down to the condition of the body, at the time of autopsy. Commander Humes is no doubt correct when he states that, at the time of autopsy, there was only one entrance wound (at the back of the head) and a much larger hole (which he designated the exit wound) forward of that. But that is definitely not the way the body looked in Dallas. And, for the life of me--and putting aside (for the moment) the fact that DiEugenio ignores these basic facts--I fail to understand how you can do so. Your entire argument (with regard to the head wound information you are quoting above) is based on the integrity of the body at the time of autopsy. Specifically, that what was observed at Bethesda (as reported by Humes) is an accurate reflection of the condition of the body (i.e., the head wounding) as it was at Parkland Hospital at Dallas. Now surely you know better than to disengenously quote Humes in the manner you do. Surely you do know--or ought to know--that the location and size of large hole in the President's head, at Dallas, was at the BACK of the head, in the occipital area. This is clear from the Dallas medical reports, and testimony--and from my own interviews with those doctors, decades ago. Surely you do know that the wound, as described by (for example) Dr. Charles Carrico, was 7 by 5 cm, or 35 square centimeters; whereas the large hole described at Bethesda was, according to the diagram drawn by Dr. Boswell at the time of autopsy, a diagram whose authenticity is attested to by the fact that it even had the late President's blood on it, was listed as "10 x 17" or 170 sq. cm. So that demonstrates a difference--between Dallas and Bethesda observations of the head wound--of more than 400%. Surely you do know that NO DALLAS DOCTOR OR NURSE described any damage to the "top" of President Kennedy's head, whereas almost the entire top of President Kennedy's head, on the right hand size, was missing at the start of the official autopsy. Moreover, when Boswell testified to the ARRB, he drew a diagram that made that very clear. Now. . let's turn to the supposed entry wound, as observed at Bethesda. With regard to the supposed entry wound observed at Bethesda--the supposed "little hole" (actually, part of a hole) that was below the huge hole observed there. . surely you do know that NO Dallas doctor or nurse reported any such wound. Now of course you surely know these things, and of course you surely must recognize this grotesque difference between the Dallas and Bethesda observations, and yet you blithely go along, quoting the Bethesda observations, when surely you do realize they don't provide valid informaiton as to how this shooting occurred. They simply constitute a verbal picture of the President's head wounding, as it appeared at Bethesda, some six hours after the shooting. But that's all it is--an "after" picture, so to speak. But not a valid picture of the way the head wounds looked at Parkland. Furthermore, surely you know that there is direct evidence, from the two FBI agents attending the autopsy, that there was surgical intervention of some sort between Dallas and Bethesda, which explains these divergent descriptions. Surely you do know that FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill, wrote in their report, that when the body arrived at Bethesda, it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." Surely you do know that when both FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill testified before the ARRB in September, 1997, they both stood behind their report. Surely you know that Sibert testified, just as he told me in November, 1966, "The report stands." Surely you know that when Sibert appeared before the ARRB, he brought with him handwritten notes that talked of this huge hole in the President's head--WHICH DID NOT EXIST IN DALLAS, and noted that "brain had been removed from head cavity." And, as he told me in our August, 1990 telephone conversation, "That's haunted me for years. . this surgery of the head. . you could look right in there." Now Mr. DVP, you can play all the games you want with DiEugenio--who apparently doesn't have the insight to realize that the body is the best evidence in a murder case, and to structure any debate with the likes of you accordingly. But you can't play those games with me. Obviously, because of the way you are utilizing Humes statements, in your "debate" with DiEugenio, its clear that you DO indeed have an appreciation of the body as "best evidence" (even if HE does not). And so I would just suggest to you, not only in the name of telling the truth, but also to preserve your own credibility, that you stop ignoring the massive amount of evidence that clearly indicates that President Kennedy's wounds --and specifically, the configuration of his head wounds--were altered in the six hour period between his murder and the autopsy. Also, in responding to this post, try not to engage in insults and name calling, as you do on at your blog site. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates the head wounds were altered--just as I have described above, and as is set forth, in detail, in Chapter 13 of Best Evidence. The fact of the matter is that the evidence indicates that the throat wound was also altered--just as I have described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence; with Dr. Perry's trach incision--which he told me, in October, 1966--was "2-3 cm", became a wide gash of "7-8 cm" and with "widely gaping irregular edges." Surely you are aware of this data, right? The fact of the matter is that there is clear, incontrovertible, and credible evidence that the President's body was covertly intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda, just as I have described in Best Evidence: it left Dallas wrapped in sheets, and arrived in a body bag; it left in a ceremonial casket, and arrived in a shipping casket. Mr. DiEugenio, who relies on certain of his "medical advisors" for his data and his ideas, apparently doesn't want to use this data in dealing with you. Apparently, he'd rather avoid all this by simply subscribing to some hypothesis that the Bethesda doctors simply lied. But you, who obviously recognize the primacy of the body as evidence (at least you appear to, from the way you rely on that CBS interview of Humes) have a responsibility, it seems to me, to tell the full and complete story of the body, and not just quote the part that suits your fancy. Mr DVP: You cannot have it both ways. If you are going to cite the body as "best evidence" and utilize the Bethesda description to refute DiEugenio's arguments, then you must recognize that the Bethesda description does NOT comport with the Dallas description; you must recognize that it does not describe the way the President's body looked in Dallas. It is as simple as that. Contrast those descriptions and its very clear what happened here: someone altered the President's wounds. By citing Commander Humes' interview with Dan Rather as you did, you have already demonstrated that you have a keener appreciation of what is important concerning the medical evidence than does DiEugenio. You understand that it all comes down to the President's body. Now please demonstrate that you can apply that same appreciation of what is relevant to the most important evidence in the case--the President's body, and just HOW it looked immediately AFTER the shooting, when it was in Parkland Hospital, lying there before a group of doctors and nurses. I invite you step up to the plate and confront the Dallas/Bethesda discrepancies. I know you can do it, Mr. DVP. In doing so, you will have to look at the facts, and surmount the name calling and ignorance of your hero, Mr. Vince Bugliosi. Try setting aside all that, and just look at the facts I know you can do it. Just follow the best evidence. Its the memorial day weekend. . give it your best shot. Make my day. DSL 5/28/11 4:35 AM PDT Los Angeles, CA

Harrison Livingstone wrote in a letter to Harold Weisberg, dated 9/20/1988: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/L Disk/Livingstone Harrison Edward/Item 032.pdf I'm sorry that it is so difficult for you to write, and I know how it must torture you to be so incapacitated. My problem since birth is that I don't breath very well, and I have constant difficulty either breathing or from the damn drugs I use to control very severe asthma. I had some relatively normal years thanks to the new inhalators, but now I have developed a hypersensitivity to them and high blood pressure as a result. That means one more damn drug to take, and it doesn't always work. Plus, I have to have my beer, and that complicates things even more. I just want to assure you of something. I don't think that I could ever be accused of taking someone else's research and calling it my own. I went to extraordinary lengths to give credit to others from the time when I began writing this book in 1979. In fact, it was just rejected once again by Random House on the basis that I relied on secondary sources. At times I did that only to give credit to the people who dug so much out. Unfortunately I may be faulted at times where I relied on a secondary source who used someone else's work, or I did not go to their sources often enough. That was because I was up in the Maine woods with no heat, no sanitation, no water etc, writing in winter on a table so cold that my hand would freeze from the coldness of the tabletop in the shelter where I was hiding out. I had only a few materials with me. My original research primarily dealt with my interviews of the doctors regarding the autopsy photos and whether or not they showed the wounds. I organized the Sun and the Globe on that, after I first talked to the doctors, and received their research as a result (which was a miracle.) the Sun sent me to Dallas and then stranded me there at Penn Jones' house. Penn and I drove to the airport to pick up Steve Parks and a Maryland State's Attorney, and they weren't on the plane. Becoming suspicious of the whole deal, Penn threw me out. Both of us talked to them in Baltimore earlier in the day and they said they were leaving for the airport. I spent a frantic weekend calling everyone in Baltimore trying to find them. Later Parks explained that a fuel truck hit his plane on the runway and they were trapped in it for three hours. He said that it then suddenly took off and they got as far as Houston, but had missed their connecting flight to Dallas. He said he forgot to bring Penn's number with him to call us and tell us what happened. They stayed in Houston for the weekend, scared. He said that he felt that what happened to the plane was not an accident. But he did not tell me any of this for several months. Meanwhile I went quite nuts. I had no money. We were all to have flown together to Dallas the week before and he had me come down to the City Room with my bag, and when I got there he said he wasn't going until the following week, but that I was to go on ahead, and handed me the cash to pay for the reservation he made. I got scared and hesitated. I waited two days or so then took a bus without telling anyone. I got there, and with some money Phil Berrigan had given me, was able to hang on a week and ultimately interview the doctors, after staying in a rat hole hotel. This has been exactly how my life has gone since I was in the Peace Corps when JFK was still alive and I discovered my PC group was a military intelligence operation, and I quit, personally telling Ted K. about it, asking him to tell his brother. Secretly, the Sun sent another reporter the week I talked to the doctors, and he corroborated what I found out, but I did not learn this for weeks. During that time I became terrified after I found my car tampered with when I returned and I had lost the shelter where I was staying. Previously there was an attempt to blow up my car. Finally Parks published what he knew in Nov 1979 in the article "The Bullets Also Affected Our Confidence" which was his way of saying that both he and the States Attorney (a young woman) were frightened. He had gone to college with a boy who became a middle level CIA functionaire, and the night I proposed the Dallas trip, he revealed the whole plan to this guy over the phone while I was taking a piss in his apartment. I overheard the talk. Parks was an "est" person, which I feel was a form of mind control, and I think his friend had control over him. I think Parks figured out, what happened when he wrote his article. But the Sun guy (Jeff Price) then went with Groden to interview Perry and Perry strongly denounced the autopsy photos. [...] Who tried to blow up Livingstone's freakin' car??? I also tried to quickly search through the archive.org versions of High Treason and High Treason 2, and can't find any mention of this incident.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvomaR-9Rnw

"The 60's were a wild time, rioters were burning down cities..." First. xxxxing. Sentence.

Your level of knowledge on a particular subject can be accurately measured by how upset you are at the Wikipeida article on it. And if somebody says they like Wikipedia in general, then they probably don't have a lot of knowledge on any subject.

Oswald needs the best legal defense, and such a defense would include the exploration of every possible theory.