Micah Mileto

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah:

Can you point out where she says this in the film?

Because I just checked the official Showtime transcript which is timed out, and this is not what she says.  Rob Wilson actually watched the film and it matches up with the transcript. 

The screen zooms in on the lower left corner of the face sheet and talks about the lack of Burkley's "verified" signature on that area of the page. My Showtime subscription expired so I can't give a timestamp.

I really wish they had not said that thing about Burkley's signature being "erased" from the Warren Commission's copy of the autopsy face sheet (Burkley had custody of the face sheet through 11/26, and was apparently in charge of making the few first photocopies that were made). They paid Whoopi Goldberg to seriously narrate the equivalent of a Facebook fake news meme.

5 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

I wasn't aware that a transcript of Bowers interview with Lane existed.  I stand corrected, if it captures his statements to Lane accurately.  Bowers may not have seen anyone on his side of the fence but Mary Moorman's photo does seem to show the same anomaly in the area that Tink staged with someone standing there, and the evidence of debris exhausted from the back of JFK's head onto the driver's side taillight & officer Hargis lines up with a shot originating from that position, so I'm inclined to think that Bowers didn't see one or more people who were actually there. The other unnerving possibility is that the transcript is not an accurate representation of what he actually said, and it's just not possible to tell with certainty.  Given the extent to which the official record in this case has been doctored to create evidence for a lone assassin and suppress other evidence, a written transcript discovered long after the event it describes strikes me as suspicious. The preponderance of evidence seems to impugn the integrity of the Bowers-Lane interview transcript, as far as I can see. Thanks to Pat for helping clarify the facts in evidence.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/pdf/lane_interviews/bowers.pdf

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Is that the book on Bowers' traffic accident? I once met a woman who'd spent years studying his accident, only to come away concluding it was an accident, and not a murder. She was a CT, who thought she'd cleared up one piece of the puzzle. Of course, most everyone ignored her at the conference afterwards. 

See the little joust in the review section, lol https://www.amazon.com/JFK-Assassination-Eyewitness-Conspiracy-Bowers/dp/1480803359/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=lee+bowers+book&qid=1639510630&sr=8-1

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Is that the book on Bowers' traffic accident? I once met a woman who'd spent years studying his accident, only to come away concluding it was an accident, and not a murder. She was a CT, who thought she'd cleared up one piece of the puzzle. Of course, most everyone ignored her at the conference afterwards. 

It has Bowers' priest saying that he told him he saw a gun in one of their hands.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

There are way more goodies in the book Beyond The Fence Line. Somebody should digitize those.

On 10/26/2021 at 5:09 PM, David Lifton said:

 

 

On the possibility that Perry made no incision: Endotracheal tubes and tracheostomy tubes are usually about 1.5 centimeters in diameter, so how could one fit into an unmodified bullet wound which was reportedly no more than 7 millimeters wide?

Is this guy trying to imply that DiEugenio fabricated the interviews he did? Unless he's trying to say that, I don't see why it's relevant to bring up other political topics that do not necessarily affect somebody's ability to report information.

On 12/10/2021 at 4:59 AM, Ed LeDoux said:

In the left image Boswell et al are pulling the scalp to manipulate it for the photo.

Right image Boswell is manipulating Kennedy's right shoulder to make back wound appear higher in relationship. (See left shoulder)

Thanks Robin.

Cheers, Ed

In the uncropped versions only available at the archives, one of the hands can actually be seen inside of the empty cranium. According to Doug Horne.

Pat Speer's study gathered all of the evidence that Connally was not talking about an early missed shot pre z180

On 12/10/2021 at 3:31 PM, David Lifton said:

 

Mr. L,

Would it be accurate to say that, it is incorrect to dismiss your early Parkland Dr. interviews on the short trach incision, because the average human trachea is only 2.7 cm in max diameter, and your early interviews gave figures of about 2-4 centimeters?

Earlier I was wondering if the Drs. could have been misunderstanding the purpose of your questions, and only gave you the length of their incision in the trachea instead of the length of the incisions across all throat tissues. But a FOUR centimeter incision across the trachea would be like slicing it all the way through, no? So the Drs. earlier estimations must have been describing the incisions across all throat tissues?

On 12/9/2021 at 9:51 PM, Pat Speer said:

I must admit I haven't watched the entire program, but this sounds like nonsense. It was a military autopsy. Finck was the top expert on gunshot wounds at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. This idea that Finck wasn't qualified to conduct a Forensic Autopsy is nonsense started by Dr. Baden to help explain why the autopsy doctors concluded the bullet entered low on the back of the head.

Which, of course, it did...

Apparently, it was unthinkable to Baden and his colleagues on the FPP that Dr. Russell Fisher could be wrong when he contradicted the autopsy doctors and said the bullet really entered high on the back of the head. But that's the truth. Fisher told the Justice Department what they wanted to hear even though it made no sense, and no one in his profession had the balls to call him on it.

In his best moments, of course, Baden admitted that neither he nor any of his colleagues had experience with military rifle ammunition, and that he'd consulted with an Irish doctor named Tom Marshall, who'd conducted the autopsies on the Bloody Sunday victims.

It was later determined, however, that what Tom Marshall thought were standard military rifle ammunition wounds were really wounds caused by bullets with weakened casings, aka dum-dum bullets. 

Ah, ok. If that were true, it would be another drop in the ocean of issues.

More rare footage of the limo.

.

What was the story in the documentary, about the pathologists requesting somebody more experienced than Finck but being rejected and directed to proceed?

Is this copium for Marquette University no longer paying the CIA's internet bills? Gotta make sure something shows up in the search engines when people search for evidence of a conspiracy. Mcadams.posc.mu.edu is out, and Jfk-online.com looks like it's on the last legs of it's life.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22123-dr-david-mantiks-new-book/?do=findComment&comment=310194 More on Elmer Moore from David Lifton

-

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.

5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

 

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

On 11/30/2021 at 2:48 AM, David Lifton said:

The "dot" on the autopsy face sheet  was placed "low."  But the handwriting in the left margin of the autopsy report  face sheet, provided a written measurement that placed it at a (slightly) higher location.  Going back to 1966/67 and what I witnessed in UCLA professor Liebeler's class: this marginal notation always seemed odd, if not downright peculiar (because that particular notation was written in a darker pencil).  The general suspicion was that the (left) marginal handwritten notation was probably added, at some point.  See Chapter 4, of B.E., ("The Zapruder Film and the Timing Problem"), and the ongoing argument I had with Prof. Liebeler, and --in particular--  Liebeler's outburst, "Humes can measure? Can't he?  He can use a ruler?!"  

The autopsy pathologist (Humes) and the ruler

As explained in B.E., it was that exchange --conjuring up the image of Humes "measuring" the location of a wound, with a ruler, on President Kennedy's body-- that caused me to realize that it was not the "autopsy report" (i.e., the written document) that was the "best evidence," but (rather) JFK's body, itself.  Again:  the President's body was evidence.  

Decades later, this may seem obvious, but it was not "obvious" at that time.  Because (back then) the "debate" was always phrased as if the key issue was the  truthfulness of a document, i.e., the U.S. Naval autopsy report. But that was not so.  The issue was not the location of a wound, as described in the (written) autopsy report; rather, the issue was the location of the wound, as it actually existed on the body --I repeat, "on the body" --of JFK.  That (conceptually) was "the key," and it was not obvious, at least not initially.

But that realization was when I had my own "eureka" moment --the realization that the "best evidence" (which was always a matter being debated in UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler's law seminar) was  not --I repeat, was not --the written U. S. Naval autopsy report, but rather the president's body itself.  Put bluntly, the "best evidence" was President Kennedy's cadaver.

The notion that JFK's body was evidence  (i.e., evidence which could be altered) was (initially) rather shocking; but it was in fact the truth.  And grasping that basic concept led to many other basic truths that were in fact fundamental to getting to the truth about JFK's murder. Bottom line: the plotters who took JFK's life understood --all to well --that President Kennedy's body was akin to a "diagram of the shooting."  It was the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.   But, to carry this metaphor further,  it (the body) was a "Rosetta Stone"  on which they could write.  And so, by messing with JFK's body, by adding their own "writing" to that "Rosetta Stone," they (the plotters) could alter wounds, remove bullets, and turn JFK's body into a medical forgery, thus altering the "diagram of the shooting," and thus changing the story of how JFK died.  

To those familiar with Best Evidence, this will all be quite familiar.   (DSL, 11/29/21 - 12:20 AM PST)

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?

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Horne said the reason they could do this was because they had two methods of fixation at Bethesda and they used both.

A brain can look that grey after just 2 days?

On 11/25/2021 at 10:39 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Let me explain about that issue and why I decided to make it one of he main pillars of the film.

I was really taken aback by how savagely Bugliosi attacked Doug Horne's essay on the Two Brain Examinations. It was so over the top that it was really kind of despicable.

So when I was working on my long review of Bugliosi I began to investigate this issue. I came up with 12 people who recalled seeing a severely damaged brain which was missing a significant part of its mass. And I listed these in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today. (p. 161). 

I then coupled that with Stringer's testimony.  But for me the clincher was the brain weight. Which people like Nalli and even Don Thomas were mistaken about. Both Horne and Chesser were familiar with the Dutch study. Which pegs the average at about 1350-75 grams.  So as Gary says in the film, how on earth can Kennedy's brain weigh  more than the average with all that damage we see in the Z film, in photos of the back seat of the car, with Jackie Kennedy crawling out onto the trunk, with Clint Hill's testimony etc. 

But at this point I still dismissed the idea of there being two brain exams.  I am slowly coming around to the possibility that Horne was correct on this also. Horne brings up three points which I think he got from Stringer on this.  First, Finck was insisting there be a neuropathologist at the exam. Second, Stringer recalled photographing serial sections on a light box. Third, Stringer told Horne after his deposition words to the effect: They didn't want Pierre there for the brain exam.  He caused too many problems during the autopsy.

When Horne said this during his interview or right after, it really began to make me wonder.  I am now leaning in the direction that he was correct on this.  And therefore, the comment made in the film about the coloring and fixing of the brain carries even more forensic value to it. They then deep sixed this brain exam. Which is why during their interviews, Wecht and Lee said there was no serial sectioning.

IMO, this issue, CE 399 and Adams, Styles and Garner, are pretty much unanswerable. And that is why I made them pillars on the forensic side.

(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.