Micah Mileto

Cool photo! Is that Father Oscar Huber or the other clergyman who was there?

Is there a specific article where Miss Cranor makes this argument, that the official autopsy photos could be compatible with a T3 wound?

Why on Lipsey? I do know that in subsequent interviews he claimed to believe in the official version of the shooting.

Medical professionals, including somebody who was a student of John Stringer, said that the official autopsy photo collection seems inadequate. Although, autopsy photos are sometimes taken with multiple shots of the same view for redundancy sake. According to Mark Crouch, James Fox claimed that he saw autopsy photos and x-rays being burned by Robert Bouck.

There is controversy over whether an honor guard carried the casket or if it was somebody else. I'd search for the term "honor guard".

[delete]

A podcast I overlooked with David Lifton giving more details on Final Charade. Some points discussed: - One version of the body alteration conspiracy would have involved the injured President being driven to a location where he could be transferred to an Ambulance, in which the bullets could be removed in private under the guise of emergency procedures. But, this plan was thwarted by John Connally also being unintentionally shot, which may have lead to Jackie or Nellie insisting that they all stay in the Limousine and drive straight to the Hospital. - Connally was shot in the chest from the front, and a fake entry wound was created in Connally's back, and 6 inches of Connally's rib was surgically removed, and that is what Dr. Shaw meant when he said that "6 inches of Connally's rib was missing". And, the most intriguing bit of speculation... - The shooters were assigned to "escape" in a train car, that moved away shortly after the shooting. But, there were other assassins who climbed on top of the train car to murder the Presidential assassins by gassing them like the holocaust gas chambers.The evidence for this was a witness who claimed to have seen two people who were sitting on top of a train car, and photographic evidence that the train car moved.

I've seen this and Mantik's "bird brain", but would it be possible to create an accurate artistic forgery of an x-ray of Kennedy's skull? At the very least, that would probably take some layers and layers of artificial material to be added and subtracted from an image based on JFK's real skull. The post-mortem x-rays in evidence do reportedly match the pre-mortem x-rays we have of JFK. Not sure if that's possible. The only way to be sure would be to find and test some old-timey x-ray equipment.

Pat was arguing for a conspiracy without the pictures being fake. The x-rays would probably need to be altered in order for there to have been a large hole in the lower back of the head. I've never seen anybody demonstrate the technique required to fake such an x-ray.

The FBI knew about Timothy McVeigh before the Oklahoma City Bombing. A racing fuel dealer caught McVeigh telling a fake cover story and reported him.

The Case for an Altered Throat Wound is taking so long because it's going to include a multi-page wall of text on the chain of custody for the autopsy photos, in the context of Saundra Spencer's statements. Still won't be an exhaustive list of problems with the chain of custody. That exhaustive list will have to come later.

From a 1/18/1996 ARRB interview with former HSCA staffer Dr. Donald A. Purdy: Purdy: During the course of that meeting, as I think the transcript shows, when they were- in fact, somebody said 'this shouldn't- we shouldn't even be recording this'. And I think it was Petty who took, I believe it was Humes, out of the room to basically set him straight. Basically 'you're just wrong, you're just clearly wrong, this is not something evidentiary'... And that's why they keep things on- is the whole thing altered or whatever. It's like Humes is lying, we don't even have to. Or he's mistaken, or he's being overly firm about something that doesn't have evidentiary significance. And unless he takes his stupid, incompetent position, which is the lower thing's the entrance hole. I mean, we're practically- he's practically down to the shirt. (Audio, part 1, 31:39) More, from Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Chapter 13: In 1996 HSCA counsel Andy Purdy told the ARRB that after Humes made his comments about the panel's presumed bullet hole being nothing but "clotted blood," Dr. Charles Petty took Humes outside and yelled at him. And this wasn't just Purdy's fantasy. In a 2-20-2000 meeting with researchers, Dr. Michael Baden not only confirmed Purdy's story, but built upon it. He re-constructed Petty's words to Humes for dramatic effect, and had Petty call Humes a "God-damned jackass." Dr. Humes was set to testify to the HSCA live on public television 9/7/1978. Gary Cornwell, the Committee's chief counsel Deputy Chief Counsel, bragged about intimidating Humes in his own 1998 book Real Answers. Obviously, Cornwell was a big believer of the "cowlick" wound theory. From pages 71-74: Based upon the work of our panel, I was able to get the main doctor who performed the original autopsy to admit some of his errors during my cross-examination of him in our public hearings-but not without a lot of hair raising resistance from one of the Select Committee's own forensic pathologists. Late in the evening of September 6, 1978, I was working in my office, preparing to cross-exam Captain James J. Humes, M.D., who was scheduled to testify at the committee hearings the following afternoon, live, on national television. After completing his residency in pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 1956, Captain Humes became the chief of anatomic pathology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland in 1960, and the director of the laboratories at the National Medical Center in 1961. It was because he held that respected position that he was chosen to be in charge of the autopsy of President Kennedy. As I prepared for my cross-examination of Captain Humes, and studied in detail the conclusions of our photographic experts and our panel of forensic pathologists, I realized that Captain Humes’ errors in conducting the autopsy had been the cause of many misplaced conspiracy theories over the years. And I came to the conclusion that when he had been questioned under oath on prior occasions, Captain Humes had not told the truth about the facts in an apparent attempt to cover up his own mistakes, and that I could prove it! Around 9:30 p.m., just as I was finishing the outline of my questioning for the next day, one of the doctors on our forensic pathology panel walked by my office door. Feeling what admittedly may have been excessive trial lawyer enthusiasm, I called for the doctor to come in and told him of my intentions: “Humes has been lying all of these years, and I am going to destroy him!” The Committee’s doctor replied, “You cannot do that, Humes is a very respected man!” My cavalier response was something to the effect, “What difference does that make, he hasn’t been telling the truth, has he?” The conversation ended-without my realizing the note on which it had ended. The next day, at the end of the lunch hour, as the television camera lights were being turned on for the afternoon session and I was going over my outline of questions in final preparation to cross-examine Dr. Humes, my pathologist came up to the podium and anxiously said that he had to talk to me. I asked him what the problem was and he said he had taken Humes to lunch and told Humes exactly what my questions were going to be, and that Humes was ready to confess that his original autopsy report was wrong! I was furious. Within minutes, I would have to start questioning Humes. I had the terrible sinking feeling that all of the drama that I had structured my questioning to achieve-the extraction of the truth, Perry Mason style-had just been destroyed by the well-meaning efforts of a doctor who had decided to take it upon himself to save his fellow colleague from public embarrassment. I went with him and met Humes. What he said was accurate, Humes was ready to admit the errors in his prior testimony. I rushed back to the podium and frantically restructured my outline of questions in light of the development. Lifton said that, when he worked as a commentator for the Washington PBS station WETA covering the HSCA hearings, he noticed that Dr. Humes' hands were literally trembling after testifying, apparently in anger: The Committee had tried to impeach his testimony, which stood in the way of their analysis. He should have had legal representation. Sitting next to him, I could see that Humes' hands were trembling. I asked him: "Dr. Humes, why don't you have a lawyer?" He replied: "I don't need a lawyer. I have nothing to hide." I said nothing more, and returned to the WETA booth.* (Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David S. Lifton, 1980)

Vince Palamara just posted a gem - the video footage of Humes' testimony to the HSCA. David Lifton was right, about seeing Dr. Humes fists literally shaking in anger from the panel's dismissal of his opinions (probably his opinions on the EOP wound. Humes is visibly pissed off while having to play along with the panel, and some of his responses even seem sarcastic. TOTALLY brings something the transcript couldn't. Love how the slimy HSCA guys are all dressed like used car salesmen.

JFK being a great man is now a conspiracy theory in and of itself. Who could have been more progressive if they were President, under the circumstances? Depends on how much you think JFK was in charge of everything. People always assume the worst about everybody instead of being skeptical.

Has the original version of this documentary really been wiped from the internet? Originally at 2 hours and 30 minutes in with the humorous 20th century FOX logo, it played the actual FOX theme. Copyright problems?

The alleged beveling was outward beveling, indicating a partial exit wound. There is, however, what looks like lead on the outer corner edge, but there is no outright proof that this represents an entry or tangential bullet strike.

I can't believe there isn't one thread about this popular 2013 documentary with millions of views by one Francis Richard Conolly. This 3 1/2 hour video is one of the things that got me interested in the medical evidence. I am not saying that even most of the statements made in this video are accurate, but you have to acknowledge the fact that conspiracy documentaries often have artistic virtues even if they lack factual virtues. Yes, maybe JFK's body wasn't switched with Tippit's, but by God does it try it's hardest to convince you, even if it is style over substance. Conspiracy documentaries always have soul where they lack research. What does everybody think about the fact that this is one of the most popular JFK conspiracy documentaries?

Thank you so much!

It was Truly? Wow, that's even crazier.

Looks like a hot ticket! This will be nice for getting into Webster!

Doug Horne Replies: On Oswald’s Earnings Now if we could only see more information on Roy Truly's income....

Doug Horne Replies: On Oswald’s Earnings

So both James Gochenaur via Elmer Moore and Dr. Donald Miller via Perry corroborate the idea that Perry was warned right after his first press conference, to stop calling the throat wound a bullet entrance? Sorry, it just wasn't totally clear in the film

Does it ever seem like Perry is holding back some information, when he goes back and forth between insisting it was an entry wound and just saying it could've been an exit wound?

Weak sauce! Soon I'll post a much better, more concise summary of Crenshaw. 99% of it is already done in a text document. Most of the information linked above is useless in assessing the credibility of Crenshaw.