Micah Mileto
-
Posts
2,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
On 10/29/2022 at 5:35 PM, David Lifton said:
Changing the subject slightly:
Re:
Daniel,
"Where is the reference for Audrey Bell asking Malcolm Perry where the wound was."
My answer (DSL answer): When I first interviewed Nurse Audrey Bell -- on camera - in 1971 (approx.) We went over this point --repeatedly-- because I was fully cognizant of its importance.
In the 1970's (or 80's/90's?) interview, did Bell also talk about Perry complaining of receiving phone calls (from Bethesda?) trying to get him to change his opinion on the throat wound?
-
On 7/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, David Lifton said:
[delete]
-
33 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:
Just to be sure (my English....) : het put it through the pre-existing bullet wound, but what was "above that bullet wound" ? Was the tube going upwards ? I'm a little confused here.
Kennedy was initially given an endotracheal tube through the MOUTH, and such a tube is supposed to go all the way down the trachea, but the doctor noticed that the throat wound interfered with his ability to push the tube all the way down and get a tight airflow, so the endotracheal tube was taken out of the mouth and a tracheostomy tube was instead used directly in the trachea.
That's the official story - - unless somebody wanted to suggest that the doctors tried using the same endotracheal tube from the mouth to also be inserted into the throat wound. A modern endotracheal tube is around 10-11 mm in diameter, while a tracheostomy tube is around 13-15 mm - - but that would probably involve the witnesses lying about using a tracheostomy tube to replace the endotracheal tube.
-
On 8/10/2012 at 12:10 AM, David Lifton said:
You interviewed McClelland on camera in 1989? Any others? Were these ever released to the public?
Also, any update on your alleged 1969 McClelland source where he suggests there was no trach incision?
(Comment 370888; comment 370979; comment 370991; comment 371024)
[...comment 370888]
11A. In 1967 (as I recall), Stewart had told one of the major Tennessee newspapers that Perry had said it was not necessary to make an incision (at all); he simply pushed the trach tube into the little bullet hole that was already there (i.e., what I, and many others, believe to have been a bullet entry wound).
11B: Update. I recently found an obscure late 1960s record in which Dr. McClelland said the same thing (!).
My answer: My final conclusion on this matter is that Dr. Perry never made an incision. He simply maneuvered the tube into the pre-existing bullet hole, as Dr. Dave Stewart said and (as I have now ascertained, Dr. McClelland said, also. More on that in Final Charade). And then the following events occurred:
[…] Furthermore, and as will be shown when I publish Final Charade, Dr. McClelland supported that account. He, too, said no incision was necessary: the tracheotomy tube was simply "pushed through" the pre-existing bullet hole.
[...comment 371024]
As to what Perry actually did (as distinguished from "what he said he did" [my quotes]: in Final Charade, I will be publishing an account from Dr. McClelland in which he (McClellan) states that Perry did not have to make an incision, and, by way of explanation, Mcclelland stated the following: that as Perry withdrew the endotracheal tube originally inserted by Dr. Carrico, Perry was then able to enter the trachea by inserting the tracheotomy tube through the pre-existing bullet wound, as soon as the endotracheal tube was withdrawn, and was at a location above that bullet wound.
-
On 9/20/2022 at 5:04 PM, Vince Palamara said:
Bart Kamp messaged me and wanted me to share the following: "Vince
the HL vids posted by you and/or the FB group are way incomplete and the quality is terrible.At some point next year I will publish the ones I have which sound much better and are much longer.And these interviews are not done by Livingstone.They were done by Ben Bradlee in and around 1979.Please share that at EF when you get the time."So even transcripts in the new re-uploads are false in labeling the interviewer as Livingstone?
-
-
The audio tapes have mostly all but turned to powder! They must be digitized now!
-
Was there ever any update to this post-COVID? Did NARA digitize them? If they did, we may be able to hear a full audio recording of the first press conference with Parkland Drs. Perry and Clark.
-
4 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:
Knowing nothing about ballistics, I'm very confused. Though I won't dispute it, I don't understand how a bullet could blow out the back of JFK's head, yet the bullet itself remained in the head, lodged behind the right ear. And if a shot from the right front entered behind the right ear and remained there, that means it barely entered his head, as if it were a bad round. And if was an explosive bullet designed to leave no trace of itself, why was the bullet itself still there?
I have always thought, perhaps naively, that a bullet blowing out the back of the head would be gone out the back of the head. I never would have dreamed the bullet could have stayed close to where it entered the head.
A bullet "lodged behind the President's ear" could also come from an EOP wound. We already entertain the possibility of a shallow back wound, why not a shallow EOP wound?
-
On 10/8/2022 at 9:42 AM, Gil Jesus said:
Shored gunshot wound of exit is produced when the outstretched skin is impaled, sandwiched, and crushed between the outgoing bullet and the unyielding object over the exit site, thus leaving an abrasion collar on the wound margin. In contrast to the entrance wound, the supported exit wound shows a scalloped or punched-out abrasion collar.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6637946/
This wound, as described by Dr. Perry, was not "punched out".
Dr. Perry described it as "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound, actually, nor was it particularly ragged. It was rather clean cut.." ( 6 H 9 ).
This was NOT a shored exit wound.
Whether or not a wound appears to be "punched in" or "punched out" can be considered a separate issue from whether a wound has an abrasion collar.
-
Bruising is not an abrasion ring which is actually scraped-off skin. Bruising can occur around either entry or exit wounds, and also exit wounds can have something similar to abrasion rings called "shored exit wounds".
-
https://jfkfacts.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-dealey-plaza-metaverse
UPDATE FROM A FEW DAYS AGO:
John Orr and Angelos Leiloglou want the project and a corresponding documentary to be finished by the 60th anniversary.
-
-
On 12/8/2021 at 9:47 PM, Micah Mileto said:
What was the story in the documentary, about the pathologists requesting somebody more experienced than Finck but being rejected and directed to proceed?
This came from JAMA's 1992 article, Dr. Humes being quoted:
'Find the cause of death'
"My orders were to find the cause of death and I was told to get anyone I thought necessary to help do the autopsy, but to limit it to only the help I needed. Hell, I could have called in people from Paris and Rome if I thought it necessary, but as it turned out, I didn't. About this time, I also received a phone call from Dr. Bruce Smith, the deputy director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology [AFIP], offering me whatever help I might need. Bruce was a friend and I thanked him, saying I would call later if I needed help."
[…]
No generals in the morgue
[...]
And a third myth - that he was not qualified to do a gunshot autopsy. "I'd done gunshot wounds before and this one was perfectly obvious - there was a huge hole on the right side of the President's head that could only have resulted from the exit of a high-velocity missile. Dr. Bruce Smith [the deputy director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology] had initially thought we might want a neuropathologist as a consultant, but once we opened the casket and saw the devastating nature of the president's head wound, we knew that there was no need for the skills of a neuropathologist. I called Dr. Smith back and told him what we had found, and he decided to make available Dr. Pierre A. Finck, who was one of the AFIP's experts in ballistics. I had never be fore met Dr. Finck, who arrived at about 9:15 P.M."
So it is at least a fact that the autopsy pathologists could have potentially requested a more experienced person to join them, but the decision was made that Finck was enough.
-
1 hour ago, Vince Palamara said:
That obituary is definitely not the researcher Kathleen Cunningham. The researcher we know retired from research around 1999-2002 and donated all her materials to a Florida university. She was very passionate, knowledgeable and enthusiastic about her medical research, but I believe the ARRB (despite its many virtues) coming and going and nothing changing in the public's eye made her give up. Other notable people who quit at that time are the 3 Paine experts: Stephen Jones, Barbara LaMonica, and Carol Hewett. Like author Henry Hurt of Reasonable Doubt, some people have a "shelf life" when it comes to the case. I myself almost gave up in 2007 and 2012 (getting a book contract put the wind back in my sails). Lately, I find myself both very prolific on You Tube (remember- it is just me, it is easy and it is all free) and burned out on the case myself. I would never quit, per se, but I am leaning toward semi-retirement. I am reluctantly doing a Zoom conference presentation this fall that will probably be my last. I feel like I have taken it as far as I can go and I have said/done it all.
Again- I would never quit in the formal sense of the word- all my many online materials (videos/blogs) will be out there and I DO have five books. I just feel spent.
Do you have any idea of how one would go about finding the report on this July 14, 1977 interview of Perry by Purdy, referenced by Cunningham? Because it definitely appears that this reference is not fake news. We only have the report and partial transcript of Perry's 1/11/1978 interview by Purdy.
-
Did Kathleen Cunningham pass away a month ago? Is this her? https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/legacy/obituary.aspx?n=kathleen-cunningham&pid=202702512&fhid=6350
-
The House Select Committee on Assassinations interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on 1/11/1978, but there was also apparently an interview before that on 7/14/1977. According to what little was written about this rarely-mentioned earlier interview, there was a discussion between Perry and Committee staffer Dr. Andrew Purdy over some kind of alleged "threat" made by Perry's wife to Dr. James Humes of Bethesda Hospital. The only reference to this that seems to be available on the internet is from an unfinished 1998 essay by researcher Kathleen Cunningham, posted to the old broken website of researcher Kenneth Rahn: http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/park2.html
[...] On July 14, 1977, the HSCA's Andy Purdy telephoned Dr. Perry. Oddly, he would wait for more than a month to type out a memorandum on their conversation. This is most peculiar because of the bizarre story Purdy would relate in the memo's final paragraph. Purdy wrote that Dr. Perry told him that "some years" after the assassination, he went to Detroit. Its not clear from Mr. Purdy's wording if what happened next occurred in Detroit, or upon Perry's return, yet apparently Humes contacted Perry by phone "regarding a threat against Humes allegedly made by Dr. Perry's wife." Mr. Purdy fails to tell us what type of threat this was, or why Dr. Humes believed it was made by Mrs. Perry. Purdy only tells us that this "allegation was untrue, but apparently someone had made the threat." Then Purdy delivers the punchline. The investigation of this threat was conducted by the Secret Service, who ". . . maintained a very cooperative attitude toward the doctors for a number of years after the assassination, including looking into such threats." <38> Such threats? Were there others? The United States Secret Service has no jurisdiction over such matters. This was a case for the local police. Who called them in? Based only on the little currently known, it would seem logical to presume that Dr. Humes did, although this must be considered sheer speculation. However, there exists yet another possibility altogether. It is intriguing that it was Mrs. Perry and not her husband that was alleged to have made the undefined threat against Humes. Thus the authors have asked the ARRB to obtain a copy of the Secret Service file on this episode. Even presuming it contains little more information than is in Mr. Purdy's memo, the date this happened could indicate the entire affair was a veiled threat aimed at Mrs. Perry because her husband was not responding to continued "directions."
The website doesn't appear to be a part 1 or 3, only a part 2 (Link), and the numbered citations don't correspond to any list of source notes.
It does not say any such thing in the report and partial transcript of Purdy's 1/11/1978 interview with Perry (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 292 [text])
What is this July 14, 1977 interview Cunningham was referring to? I can't find any other reference to this, anywhere.
-
The story of Saundra Spencer relates to one of many issues in the chain of custody for the official autopsy photographs – there is no clear identification for who developed the film and made the prints at the NPC. There are least 4 potential candidates for who could have done the hands-on processing there – besides Saundra Spencer and James Fox, there is U.S. Navy Lieutenant j.g. Vincent Madonia, White House photographer Robert Knudsen, and NPC employee Carol Ann Bonito. There doesn’t seem to be any single definitive account. There is also a lack of information on how the color negative film in the official collection was duplicated from the color positive film. The HSCA tried publishing a report on the chain of custody for the autopsy materials (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 23 [text]), but it was not very detailed, and a lot more information came afterwards. The statements of Saundra Spencer clearly don’t corroborate the official story, but she did suggest some other potential witnesses. When Spencer was asked in her first 12/13/1996 interview “...Was there anyone else you know of at NPC who had any role in developing any autopsy photograph- photographs other than yourself?”, she said “I- I was trying to think of who the two people were that were working that day, and I- I can't think of it”. Spencer said that whoever else was helping would have been a military rank below her. Spencer then suggested the name of “Bonita” as somebody who could have helped process the photos (Spencer’s 12/13/1996 interview by the ARRB [audio]). The name of Carol Ann Bonito was listed on a Navy Enlisted Distribution and Verification Report from 1963 (ARRB MD 144). In 1963, Carol was in the Navy as a third class E-4 photographer's mate (ARRB, 12/16/1996 email from Douglas Horne to Dave Montague; ARRB Electronic Files of T. Jeremy Gunn, Executive Director and General Counsel, INTERVIE_BONITO.WPD). When Spencer was asked in her deposition about who else could’ve been there helping with the photographs, she said “They secured the regular color lab crews and we stayed”... “There was about three of us up there”... “Carol Bonito was the only one I can identify. There was a 2nd Class that had come aboard just recently, but I didn't remember. The only thing I remember is Kirk was on his name”... “...the gentleman I was talking about was a 2nd Class…”. Question: “When Mr. Fox or the person came to the White House lab, approximately, how many other people were working in the lab at that time?”, answer: “Two others”, question: “Do you remember who they were? Was one Ms. Bonito, for example?”, answer: “Yes, and the 2nd Class. The day crew was on. We had two, usually two 2nd Class that worked the evening shift” (Spencer’s ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio]). Carol Ann Bonito, whose last name was later changed to Roberts, was found and contacted by the ARRB in 1996 (ARRB staff memo, 5/18/1998, Doug Horne to Jeremy Gunn, Requested Lists of Information Re: All of ARRB's Medical Witnesses, and All New ARRB Medical Evidence Not Previously in JFK Collection; ARRB, 12/27/1996 letter from Jeremy Gunn to Carol A. Roberts), but further details do not seem to be currently available on the internet.
-
The transcript is littered with [unintelligible] because this is an old audio tape from 1979 being digitized in 2022. Tape can deteriorate into powder before that point. If anybody has any old videos or recordings on any kind of tape (which aren't available on the internet, try using duckduckgo video search to be sure), please look into acquiring a machine to turn them into digital files or a CD, or else they will be lost forever.
-
If only more people would try to save videos like these as digital files. Unfortunately, the internet not as permanent as people once thought.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnoWB2x_TIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNOruNVAMjc
Maybe there is more to come. This is from Bart Kamp, right? Did he post these somewhere else or is this Youtube channel connected to Kamp?
-
On 9/5/2022 at 8:40 PM, David Von Pein said:
And I never said McClelland capitulated. In fact, that was kind of my whole point---the fact that he didn't reverse his opinion regarding the location of JFK's head wound even after seeing this autopsy photo at the National Archives:
On 9/5/2022 at 8:40 PM, David Von Pein said:And then, after seeing the above photo at the Archives, McClelland comes up with his "Scalp Pulled Up Over The Wound" theory, which is completely ridiculous and impossible given the wholly undamaged condition of JFK's scalp in the photo above.
Dr. McClelland was, of course, trying his best to have it both ways concerning President Kennedy's head wound. But when logic and common sense enter the equation, it's quite clear that having it both ways is just not possible in this instance.
Please inform me as to how and where I have engaged in "a complete misrepresentation of McClelland". I look forward to seeing that.
I think you must be referring to other Lone Assassin believers who have stated in the past that McClelland completely reversed his position regarding JFK's head wounds in the 1988 NOVA special [see link below]. Because I have never said any such thing about Dr. Robert N. McClelland.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Odd Tales Of The Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV In 1988
I'm not even saying that I personally think the cerebellum was blasted out, but I found this (date 2012 maximum) McClelland lecture where he insists that he saw cerebellum, and spoke of having a previous conversation with Dr. Marion "Pepper" Jenkins where they "agreed to disagree" over whether they saw cerebellum that day. 14 minutes in, and on 32:30 he talks about the photographs.
https://ia600603.us.archive.org/24/items/Dr.RobertN.Mcclelland/DrMcclelland.mp3
-
On 9/6/2022 at 6:04 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:
"Human duplicity is a marvel to contemplate."
(Ok, I'll admit, I've stolen that from a certain review I recently read)
I used to think it had to do with age, experience,.... stuff like that, but it's not.
It's simply because we are all different. Some just have a really really really hard time admitting they are wrong, or know nothing about a subject. I'm not saying, quote "Opposites are not contradictory but complementary", hmmm, nah...
My kids are opposites, it took me years to get them "to agree to disagree", sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and when it doesn't I'll hide for cover just in case another book comes flying over my head all across the living room...
There is no such thing as maturity, there are only changed opinions. The changing of one's opinion is not a magical marker for an objective truth about the world. It terrifies me how people age-shame using "maturity" a a justification, when if anything, one believing in maturity is a sign of immaturity! It's like saying "My favorite color used to be red, but then I grew up and realized blue was the best color".
-
11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I can't remember which but in Eye of History the attendant to Humes, Jenkins, O'Connor, David or Custer whichever remembered them investigating a wound to the right temple. Told to stop, Humes called to the gallery, coming back and saying we will move on from this.
The same attendant told to go tell the cigar smoker in the gallery to put it out by Humes? But didn't because of his rank?
https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/
It was Jenkins. O'Connor also said Burkley didn't want them examining the throat.
Lifton and Morningstar, nice but no cigar.
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Micah Mileto
Doesn't the Zapruder film not really show the large head wound? The red blob appears to "move around" the head because it's supposed to just be the bloody inner surface of a skull fragment hanging on by a piece of scalp? Is it also possible that all of Doug Horne's alleged "photo experts" are working off of the fallacy of thinking the red blob is brain?