Micah Mileto

https://youtu.be/KrNRCxow-Ek I can't believe how much money and effort this guy put into making this video, only to seemingly misunderstand basic aspects of the case. This guy could have made some actual progress, maybe by testing the effects of a 6.5 round fired through plates of artificial bone and gel, but nope, he doesn't even know what the Single Bullet Theory is.

Maybe one day we could have a film about nothing but the New Orleans connection. The quest for the perfect JFK documentary continues.

James Curtis Jenkins said that it was standard protocol to use a pencil on face sheet diagrams. I do not know whether using a pen would have been a big deal. One could imagine a man in black using a pen to write on the face sheet after realizing T3 was too low.

Conspiracy theorists seem to be PARTIALLY at fault. People just don't have all the time in the world. Investigators rarely have the resources to spend on what seems like a gamble. It can take years to gather enough information to PRESENT a possible smoking gun for a theory, let alone proving it. Consider how embarrassing it feels to post a comment supporting something that you didn't know was debunked - maybe an internet commenter could afford to lose a little face like that, but what should the editor of the New York Times do? All of the good stuff is scattered around instead of being neatly organized, which makes it harder for others to research and verify stuff. And with obscure political topics like this, a skeptical audience will dismiss secondary sources, even as a jumping off point for their research. But without secondary sources, interpreting the primary sources could become a matter of spending weeks/months/years researching. Probably only a few people in the world have the skills necessary to teach quality JFK conspiracy info to your average skeptical audience. What should a newsperson think when they are trying to decide on what topic to cover?

A brain can look that grey after just 2 days?

(11) When asked how well the brain in the brain photographs was fixed, Dr. Kirschner said that it was very well fixed, and initially estimated that it had been fixed two weeks or more, based on its appearance (very firm, and very pale-no pink color at all). After further discussion, he modified his original impression by saying that it may have been fixed between 1-2 weeks only, and that for it to have been fixed less than a week this brain would have to have been placed in an extremely concentrated solution of formaldehyde. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145280#relPageId=231 It might be possible and inexpensive to prove that Doug is on to something with this "older brain" idea. The solution is to hire experts to judge whether it is possible for an injured brain to lose all of it's pink color after just 2 days fixation. How much does a five-minute consultation with a brain pathologist cost? EDIT: I am also wondering how the process of preserving a brain has changed since the 1960's and before. Maybe preserving brain tissue was less of a priority back then.

Fresh brains can't turn pure grey after only a couple days of fixing, no matter how much you try? I wonder if there's any more literature on this - how a brain loses it's color.

First public statement describing a trach incision?

So are these guys saying that CE567 and CE569 were planted?

EOP wound is king.

That's a double-whammy of a theory right there - not only does it put the tracheotomy into question, it gives an answer for why, if there was a blow-out in the occipital area, the Parkland staff claimed JFK appeared to be breathing.

Neither the press conference nor any of the early Parkland reports specifically mention an incision being made on the neck, they just use the word "tracheotomy" or "tracheostomy". The definition of that word is strained when we are talking about a pre-existing hole in the trachea.

Mrs. Cranor may have invented a new game called "let's find a quote from Perry where he specifically says he laid eyes on the pleural area". I can't find any. Are we sure we aren't falling victim to some kind of kindergarten trick? Perry said that he DID NOT see evidence of damage to the pleural area or major blood vessels. He didn't say that he tried looking, he just said that he didn't see it. I didn't see it either. Perry DID NOT specifically say that he actually saw the inside of the pleural area. Perry did say that he thought there was "blood and air" or "bloody air" in the mediastinum because blood was frothing out of the throat wound. "Hematoma" doesn't mean the appearance of a bruise, it just means localized bleeding outside of blood vessels.

Sad.

Wait, didn't Perry only say he thought there was blood and air in the right mediastinum, because there was blood bubbling out of the original throat wound?

I do find it very strange that nobody through the years thought to directly ask Perry to fully explain if he got a chance to lay his eyes on the pleura. No wonder Perry didn't like dealing with "conspiracy theorists" aka people who ask specific questions. Does my quote above not look as if Perry was reading through a script really fast (not saying he was, but the tone is similar, who knows if he really ended the interview because he had to go to work).

Couldn't finish "The Case For An Altered Throat Wound" today. Stay tuned.

CAN ANYBODY WITH BETTER EARS HELP MAKE A MORE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT? many parts are difficult to make out. Perry: I recognize, as I said earlier, I was in a big hurry. He had agonal respiration. I didn’t even wipe the blood off. Oakes: Yeah. Perry: Soon as I saw there was trouble with breathing, I did a trach. Oakes: Yeah- Yeah. Perry: I cut right through that wound and nobody else ever saw it. [inaudible] big enough to do the trach and to handle bleeding that was coming out, so it was big enough to do a little operation on it, but [inaudible]. And I did say that, and I followed that sentence by saying that neither Dr. Clark nor I know how many bullets there were or where they came from. Oakes: Right. [...] Oakes: Is the trach incision just like a quarter-inch or something, or? Perry: No. Oakes: It’s bigger? Perry: A tracheotomy incision has to be big enough to fit a big ol’ tube in the trachea, but I made this bigger than a tracheostomy incision [inaudible] Oakes: Oh. Perry: I made it big enough to do [inaudible], I mean, who knows. I mean, it was big enough. [inaudible] Oakes: That’s why. They try to make a big deal out of the- the wound- Perry: [inaudible] people don’t know anything about [inaudible] Oakes: Wow. Perry: Somebody who knows something about this business wouldn’t make a big deal about it. They’re amateurs, they’ll say something, but what do they know? I mean, [inaudible] been there. When you’re there, you get the incision big enough to control the airway and to control the breathing- Oakes: Right. Perry: Which is what I did. Oakes: Right. Perry: And I didn’t measure it, I didn’t [inaudible], I didn’t fiddle with it, I was in a hurry. Oakes: Wow. Perry: -big enough, but I put a big ol’ metal tracheostomy tube in there with a flange on it, like we used to have in the old days, now we have much smaller modern stuff, bu what we used in 1963 was a big ol’ metal flange which further destroyed the tissues, and any one who’s experienced in this business wouldn’t give that a second thought. Only all of these conspiracists and amateurs who have opinions about something they know nothing about. Oakes: Right. Perry: And that’s what’s happened. Doesn’t do any good to tell them, they’ve already been told, they didn’t believe it the first time around, so [inaudible] now. Oakes: Oh that’s- Perry: [inaudible] make money, all these books and stuff. Caller: Yeah. Perry: [inaudible] really care. I gotta go to work, nice to talk to you. Caller: Oh, well thank you, Dr. Perry, I- Perry: [inaudible] Caller: Yeah, I- I’ll tell her. Perry: [inaudible]

Connally once specified that, from his point of view, the only way the SBT could be true is if the first shot missed. So, the value of Connally's statements would be strengthened with a case against a loud report occurring before z180-224. Pat Speer's chapters on this seem pretty undeniable. IMO the closest thing to decent evidence for this is Connally's fast head turn after z160, which the HSCA suggested was too fast to be a normal reaction.

Could there be a sequel to The Searchers that's like The Avengers for the JFK research community? The real truth would be the friends they made along the way. Maybe near the end, Beverly Oliver comes clean as a faker and the rest of the gang says they already knew and accept her anyway.

If you got an old 90's camcorder that uses tape, anybody can make a film under the "analogwave" aesthetic. Just make your film look like it was taped off the history channel for a homework project.

52 minutes in, Sibert's marked diagram of a skull for the ARRB is shown, to support the theory of a blowout in the occiput. But, Sibert has made conflicting statements describing the size of the head wound and the size of the brain. In a body alteration scenario, maybe Sibert wouldn't have seen the wound before the brain was removed, and maybe he overcompensated for this by drawing a smaller-looking head wound on the diagram. What was presented as copper could be gold.

I noticed some high-quality color footage of the limo parked at Parkland. Did anybody zoom in to see if there was any sign of a bullet hole visible in the windshield?

Aguilar says that 45 minutes in. Couldn't find that story on his "how five investigations..." essay.