Micah Mileto

edit

17 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"As the historian Max Holland has written

 

Max Holland? The guy who was exposed by Pat Speer for faking his laser experiment in Dealey Plaza? The experiment that must have cost a fortune to arrange? The guy who, before his own TV special aired, admitted that his central theory was disproven (a hole in a traffic sign visible on a film)? The guy who wrote articles on the JFK assassination which were literally published by the CIA?  That's the talking head we're going with here, on the subject of whether CIA people were involved in the assassination? I have a feeling he's a little biased.

31 minutes ago, Roy Wieselquist said:

 

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKeveryday/

This subreddit consists of evidence for a temple wound.

According to the British magazine Today, February 1964, Dr. Shaw wrote the following to reporter Larry Ross: “The first bullet struck the President in the back of the neck at the region of the second thoracic vertebrae and emerged from the front of his neck, piercing his trachea. The third bullet struck the President on the left side of the head in the region of the left temporal region and made a large wound of exit on the right side of the head” (Link link 2).

8 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the ARRB's Quest for Dr. Burkley's Lawyer's Papers (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

Neither mentioned how Paul O'Connor said he remembered Burkley discouraging the pathologists from examining the throat wound.

delete

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I tried looking for any sign of Perry's work schedule, but I couldn't find anything useful. Perry told the WC that he was in the "administrator's office" when he was called. The Death of a President said the call happened "shortly after midnight".

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 I then took another look at Groden's "back of the head photos" and realized that these witnesses were for the most part not pointing to the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing, and that the location many of them were pointing to was as close or closer to the wound location shown in the autopsy photos than the wound location shown in the so-called McClelland drawing. Around this time, Tink Thompson joined this forum and confirmed, moreover, that McClelland had had nothing to do with the creation of the McClelland drawing, beyond that an artist had made the drawing in an attempt to depict the wound described by McClelland in his testimony. Well, this was a problem seeing as McClelland had in recent years become a darling of the CT research community, whilst simultaneously claiming he'd either drawn the McClelland drawing himself, or had advised Thompson on the creation of the drawing. And here was Thompson confirming that the man's memory was shot.

 

If this bit of information "confirms" that McClelland's memory was "shot", then maybe he could be wrong about the Saturday morning phone call from Humes.

On 1/23/2022 at 4:16 PM, Pat Speer said:

O.K. Back to square one. Where did Perry say he received threatening calls on the night of the shooting? It seems to me this is all second-hand info received decades after the fact. I've watched and read a number of Perry interviews and have no recollection of him saying such a thing. 

As to the disappearance of the Parkland transcript, I agree, this was no coincidence. But it wasn't because those making it disappear knew the shots came from the front, but because they were concerned what the public might think if Perry's initial perception was made public. So Specter put on a show, and "helped" Perry pretend the newspaper articles quoting him had misquoted him. It was all part of a dog and pony show. But it's silly, IMO, to pretend this was all part of the plot to kill the President. There was the plot to kill the President and then there was a coordinated effort to make Oswald look like a lone assassin. I see them as two separate events, with those involved in the second event not privy to what really happened, and presumably believing Oswald actually did the crime. 

Do you suspect that some of the early "entry wound in the forehead" news reports were an unintended artifact of trying to convince people AGAINST a conspiracy in Dealey Plaza?

9 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Yes the lie perpetrated in the JAMA article about Crenshaw not being in the room " We can't prove a negative but we don't know if Crenshaw was even in the room that day" was disproven by the prior testimony of nurse Henchcliffe and Dr Curtis. I call it is a lie because the lead Dr in the JAMA article, Dr Baxter, also testified prior that Crenshaw was in the room. In fact when asked, Crenshaw's name  was the first name he mentioned.
 "They all rejected Crenshaw's version of events ". All the Parkland staff? In the ARRB testimony McClellend talks about Perry's intimidation and Jones talks about his. If they all said no one was frightened into silence after Crenshaw's book in the 80's why did he then make those statements in the 90's?
 I think we also have to consider that if any doctors were frightened into silence then of course they would deny being frightened into silence right?
 I have not seen any of the news stories or articles that support the idea that all or some of the Dr's rejected the stories about intimidation. do you have a link to support this? and do you know if the claims Posner made can be substantiated beyond his word?

I have combed through every Crenshaw statement, and I could not find one instance of him claiming to have knowledge of a specific cover-up. Just Dr. Baxter's self-admitted ban on commercial benefit, and the Secret Service agents explaining to them the autopsy conclusions. Crenshaw always said that the "conspiracy of silence" he was referring to was fearing for their careers.

"Anatomy of Dr. Humes' Saturday Morning Phone Call" could be a long video essay in itself. BTW anybody can copy, distribute, adapt, or alter my posts. I think intellectual property laws should be abolished because they force people to pay for things which are not scarce.

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

 

The Barnum statement

Coast Guardsman George A. Barnum was a pallbearer on the days up to and including President Kennedy's funeral (ARRB MD 163).

When interviewed by researcher David Lifton on 8/20/1979, Barnum had in his possession a written account dated 11/29/1963 summarizing his version of events.

Excerpt from Lifton's 1980 book Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy:

[Part IV – What, When, And Where?, Chapter 16. Chain of Possession: The Missing Link]

Next I called Barnum. He said that although he did remember there had been confusion, he could not recall the details.⁸⁰ But Barnum didn’t have to rely on his memory for information about that night. He explained that when he reported back for duty after the funeral, his superior at Coast Guard Headquarters directed him to write a report. That officer’s interest was purely historical. He knew of someone associated with the Lincoln funeral who, years later, regretted not having created a contemporaneous record. Barnum was surprised to learn that his November 29, 1963 account, which he had saved primarily for his children’s benefit, contained details of interest to me.

[...]

[Part VII – SYNTHESIS, Chapter 20. The X-rays and Photographs Reconsidered]

[...] In his November 29, 1963 account, Coast Guardsman George Barnum wrote that as the men were having sandwiches and coffee sometime after midnight, Admiral Burkley came in and talked to them, and said three shots had been fired, that the President had been hit by the first and third, and he described the trajectories of the two that struck:

"The first striking him in the lower neck and coming out near the throat. The second shot striking him above and to the rear of the right ear, this shot not coming out...."⁶¹

Although Barnum's report was incorrect on the head shot not exiting, both points of entry are those shown in the autopsy photographs, and the neck trajectory was the "transiting" conclusion to be found in the official autopsy report Humes wrote later that weekend. *

Compare this to the statements made by Dr. Pierre Finck, the autopsy's assisting forensic pathologist. Finck claimed that it wasn't until a day later when they concluded a bullet passage in the throat.

For this statement to come from 11/29/1963, Barnum could not have been influenced by news media reports. The existence of a wound in Kennedy's "lower neck"/upper back was not public knowledge on 11/29/1963, let alone the concept of a bullet entering the back and exiting the throat at site reported by the staff at Parkland Hospital. The media first began receiving leaks after members of the FBI received the 12/9/1963 summary report, which contained the reports on the autopsy from agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, and the 1/13/1964 Supplemental Report, which contained the lab results on the clothing. The first leak was a 12/12/1963 Dallas Times-Herald article by Bill Burrus headlined KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK. Burrus, citing an unnamed source, correctly reported the official autopsy conclusions, with a passage from the back to the throat, describing the back wound as being "above President Kennedy’s right scapula – commonly called the shoulder blade" (Lifton, Best Evidence, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Burrus apparently had insider knowledge the FBI was unaware of - the Bureau said they did not obtain a copy of the official autopsy protocol until 12/24/1963 (FBI 62-109090-29, WC HQ File, Section 1; FBI 62-109060-4236, JFK HQ File, Section 102). In a 12/13/1963 memo, the FBI even tried disputing the accuracy of Burrus' article by citing the reports from Sibert and O'Neill which claimed the back wound had no exit (ARRB MD 161). Starting on 12/18/1963, more mainstream publications began running stories acknowledging the existence of the back wound (e.g. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Secret Service Gets Revision on Kennedy Wound After Visit by Agents, Doctors Say Shot was from Rear" by Richard Dudman; Washington Post, "Kennedy Autopsy Report" by Nate Haseltine). Thus, George Barnum probably knew more about the autopsy on 11/29/1963 than the entire FBI and news media.

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The rest of the Parkland doctors, including McClelland, thought Crenshaw was full of it, and incredibly insulting when he implied they were scared to tell the truth. 

I think he was telling the truth as he saw it, but was not exactly reliable. As shown on my website, when asked to point out the location of the head wound on anatomy drawings showing the skull from behind and from the side, the two locations he picked out didn't come close to overlapping. In other words, he had a poor grasp of anatomy. 

Crenshaw said that the only "conspiracy of silence" he was directly aware of, was the fact that talking about a conspiracy in the Kennedy case could hurt their medical career. McClelland corroborated Crenshaw being inside of Trauma Room One, and McClelland said, in a 9/24/2013 interview for the Sixth Floor Museum alongside Dr. Ronald Jones "The doctor sitting right there in front of me, I think, has some knowledge of that, don't you? Yeah. So I think that phone call which came from the White House apparently did come through", "All I know is circumstantial, I know nothing directly about what I was told, and what I was told, and again, by my good friend sitting here in front of me who was sitting there in the nurse's station listening to the phone, and someone called from the White House as Lee Harvey Oswald was on the table wanting to find out what condition he was in. That's all just hearsay really from me, but I think that probably did occur" (Link, 31:51).

These quotes on Dr. Charles Baxter show how cover-ups can naturally occur among people who believe they are doing their best:

From Crenshaw and Baxter's 4/3/1992 appearance on ABC's 20/20: (Link 1 [link 2]):

Q: It seems almost incomprehensible that a team of highly intelligent, highly-trained doctors could be standing over the President of the United States and see wounds that, you say, came from the front, and yet the official government story is it came from the back, and wait this long to break the silence.

Crenshaw: Intimidation, fear, and career-mindedness.

Q: Those are the factors?

Crenshaw: Exactly. But again, you have to understand the time in 1963. The people that were with this country were telling you what to do, how to do it, and I think the feeling was we went along to get along.

Narrator: Now semi-retired, Dr. Crenshaw has written a book breaking nearly thirty years of silence.

Q: Could these what you call "conspiracy of silence" had been out of plain old fashioned patriotism among the doctors?

Crenshaw: No question about that. And Dr. Baxter had wanted no one to say anything because he was worried about commercialization.

Dr. Charles Baxter: Well, I made a statement that, any one of us in the school or in the hospital that ever made a dime off of anything they said about the assassination, I would try to see that their medical career was ruined.

Q: You felt that strongly?

Dr. Baxter: Yes. I don't know how many emotions were in that statement, but I felt like it was one that needed to be said.

Dr. Crenshaw: That's the reason I waited so long. I waited until I felt I'm at the end of my career, I don't fear my peers 'cause I think they believe it too.

From Crenshaw's appearance on the Larry King Show, April 1992:

[...Audio, part 10, 6:00]

Caller: Yes, on the show 20/20, one of the head doctors said that he would ruin the career of anyone who tried to make any money off of writing a book, anything like that. Is that one of the reasons why maybe you waited so long to write the book that you did?

Crenshaw: Well, yes and no. I think, giving him an honest feeling is that what he was thinking more of commercialism, or like a young physician going out into practice, putting a shingle up, and by saying the worked on Kennedy to give him a leg up so-to-speak over his competition. But it did in fact keep a lot of people quiet for a long time, as far as making any statements.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

There's also this. (It's good to re-read these things because there's always something that you notice the second third and fourth time that you might have missed before.) McClelland claimed he was present when Humes called Perry and found out about the throat wound...and it was on Saturday morning.

 

I think the first call came on the day of the assassination!

Link, if you haven't seen this yet... all of parts 8-27 deal with the timing of the alleged phone call(s) between Humes and Perry: https://rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/druxc1/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_8_the/

This version of the essay, however, needs an update which will come some month. It's missing some things, like excerpts from Humes' WC testimony, Audrey Bell's story about Perry being kept on the phone all night, and the Martin Steadman 2013 story of his interview with Perry.

I thought the Perry intimidation story came from James Gochenaur??? Could it be from both Gochenaur and McClelland?

From JFK and the Unspeakable:

Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony. " Moore said that in threatening Perry, he acted " on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters. "555

Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck."556 Moore admitted, " I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry. "557 However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching orders from Washington. " He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off. "558 In the cover-up, the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated.

[...Notes]

555 . House Select Committee witness Jim Gochenaur to interviewer Bob Kelley on Gochenaur's conversations with Secret Service agent Elmer Moore. Notes by Bob Kelley on June 6, 1975; pp. 3-4. JFK Record Number 157-10005-10280.

556. From transcribed copy by House Select Committee on Assassinations of taperecorded conversation with James Gochenaur, May 10, 1977, p. 22. JFK Record Number 180-10086-10438.

557. Author's interview with Jim Gochenaur, April 28, 2007.

558. Moore cited by Gochenaur. HSCA conversation with Gochenaur, May 10, 1977, p. 23. Also Jim Gochenaur's letter to the author, October 23, 2007.

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ok, let's be clear. I've been at two conferences where McClelland was interviewed and even had a short chat with him myself. And I've also watched him interviewed on TV or YouTube a dozen times or so. And he has said two things which run against the narrative holding that the doctors were threatened and/or the autopsy photos were faked. First, he specified that he was never threatened or pressured to change his views in any way. Second, he insisted that the throat wound in the autopsy photos was as he remembered and that there was no sign of tampering with the neck wound. 

There is of course a third thing he said that no one wants to deal with. He told Richard Dudman within a week or so of the shooting that while the small throat wound appeared to be an entrance, the head wound gave NO indication of having been fired from the front.  And that's not all. He later told Weisberg that Jim Garrison was a crank but that Specter was a good guy. 

By his own admission, MClelland was not a CT prior to his viewing the Zapruder film in the 70's. I think it's safe to say his impression of a lot of things changed as a result. 

Dr. McClelland’s approval may have been half-hearted. In a 12/21/1963 article in The New Republic, Richard Dudman added this detail on his meeting with McClelland: “The throat wound puzzled the surgeons who attended Mr. Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital when they learned how the Dallas police had reconstructed the shooting. Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the three doctors who worked on the throat wound, told me afterward that they still believed it to be an entry wound, even though the shots were said to have been fired almost directly behind the President. He explained that he and his colleagues at Parkland saw bullet wounds every day, sometimes several a day, and recognized easily the characteristically tiny hole of an entering bullet, in contrast to the larger, tearing hole that an exiting bullet would have left”.

Abolish prisons and replace them with paid guards assigned to directly supervise convicts who are violent. Any argument to the contrary is probably just based on a thirst for revenge that cannot be proven to be productive. It would probably be way cheaper than prisons, given that it takes an average of $2,300 per day to house prisoners, and bodyguards could go for just a couple hundred bucks per day. Use the benefit of the doubt to treat all convicts with the same compassion as people with mental disabilities. It is impossible to prove in court, without pseudoscience, the difference between pure evil and mental handicap.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Into the Posnerverse

52 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Micah, does your research tell you anything about Burkley's actions prior to the formal autopsy. Did he have opportunity to look for bullets? ( Larry is saying above that Burkley wanted the autopsists to focus on this).

You mean before the body was first placed on the autopsy table? Unless somebody wanted to argue that the body was taken out of a casket, put on the autopsy table, put back into a casket, then taken out again and put on the same autopsy table again. for a second time after that? It depends on who you believe really witnessed the beginning of the autopsy. Some witnesses were reportedly asked to leave the room for the taking of the x-rays. Some statements suggest that Sibert and O'Neill didn't exactly have the "front row tickets" they claimed they did. But then again, Sibert and O'Neill were the ones who originated a lot of the strangest artifacts of evidence regarding the beginning of the autopsy (the body wrappings, surgery of the head statement, no honor guard, etc.).

Some statements suggest that a surgical probe was used on the throat wound during the autopsy, which was something not reported by the pathologists - they only reported using a probe in the back wound. More statements suggest that the organs of the neck were dissected and/or removed, again not reported and in some cases denied. Several statements suggesting the trach incision was differently shaped at the autopsy (or on the autopsy photos) than it left Parkland.

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I can see a 'middle way' with reference to RFK's involvement in the autopsy. If all concerned are aware of 'the contingency plan' for the assassination of officials, and RFK is part of that plan, then you can see the autopsy controllers deferring to RFK, in order to confirm the presidential family will go along with the actual procedures. In this scenario RFK is not running the autopsy, but he is influencing it, and associating himself with the cover-up.

How is Burkley's conduct explained? Why did he appear to want to blow the conspiracy, but then back down?

Paul O'Connor said he remembered Burkley telling the pathologists to not probe or dissect the throat wound because it was "just a tracheotomy".

Okay, so is Lamar Waldron just a crazy old man who likes to lie? Actually asking. Pretty groundbreaking information to come across in the early 90's, only to save it for a random podcast in 2021.

7 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well yeah, on that I have to fall back on the practice that if you get something that explosive you either need get an affidavit from the source or better yet get them to sign something you can put in an appendix or otherwise make available.  Better yet it should have been in a taped interview, voice or video with a transcript.  That is what Noel Twyman did and I did it with John Martino's son. And of course such key remarks  should be exactly quoted in the book - unfortunately I no longer have a copy of Lamars book so I can't check out some of the things in this thread myself. 

His books might be on libgen.is

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

As I noted above, the effort to create a contingency plan is documented and even covered in the media.  As to RFK at Bethesda, I highly doubt Lamar would lie about it but he may well have built a scenario that outruns the facts that have emerged over following years - as in the case of his scenario involving AMWORLD and the idea of an imminent invasion of Cuba, both of which were proven wrong by further research. 

I mean about what John Nolan allegedly said about the autopsy. I have a hard time believing that this is anything other than Waldron's "tr0ll reveal" that will forever put his credibility in jeopardy. He should've worn a wire.

Is there any chance that Lamar Waldron is lying?