Micah Mileto

Fixed broken link.

Not 157-10005-10280, but the one after https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49383#relPageId=3

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/ARRB-Emails/ARRBmails09828.pdf Memorandum on Rick Russo Videotaped Interviews of Autopsy Witnesses Body: I. IntroductionOn Monday, March 10, 1997, I viewed approximately three hours of a videotaped interview made by Rick Russo with five witnesses to President Kennedy's autopsy. The witnesses were: Floyd Riebe, Jerrol Custer, Dennis David, Paul O'Connor, and James Jenkins.The interview was conducted in Pittsburgh during late 1992 or 1993. Russo had the five men sit at a table together and they were all on camera answering questions from him (and later Wecht, as well as a few questions from Mark Crouch whose questions were conveyed through Russo) at the same time. The format sometimes led to more than one person talking at one time and the questioning was sometimes leading and imprecise. Russo failed to clarify a lot of statements that were made. Nevertheless, there were some interesting statements made.I will chronicle below what I believe to be the highlights of what each individual had to say during the interview. Because they were being interviewed together, I will record what each individual said, in order, as the interview was conducted. II. The Interview Dennis David (David)He said that the President's body arrived at Bethesda in a "gray shipping casket," transported in a black hearse. Approximately 25 minutes later, the entourage that included the First Lady and the Secretary of Defense arrives at the front entrance to the building.Paul O'Connor (O'Connor)The body arrived in a "grayish pink" casket and was contained in a body bag. The President's body was unclothed with a sheet around the midsection. He described a massive head wound and used his hand to describe it, moving from the side head into the back of the head. (As is often the case when someone is describing the head wound, it was imprecise and the parameters of the wound were not made clear with his hand.)James Jenkins (Jenkins)The body arrived in a "grayish brown" casket. In response to a question, O'Connor, Custer and David all said that they heard a helicopter or helicopters around the time that the official entourage arrived at Bethesda.Jerrol Custer (Custer)He said that he had already taken a full set of x- rays by the time the official entourage arrived at Bethesda.CusterHe said that he took 14 or 15 x-rays of the President's body. He made three trips out of the morgue to his department to get more film.JenkinsWhen the sheets were taken off of the unclothed body of the President, Jenkins filled in the cover sheet of the autopsy report as Boswell dictated to him.O'Connor He said that the bullet wound in the back did not penetrate the plural cavity. The bullet bruised the intercostal (sp?) muscle, but did not traverse the body.JenkinsHe described the removal of the organs and the probing of the back wound. At one point, Jenkins said that one could see the impression of Humes' finger, as he probed the wound, against the plural cavity, but it was not penetrated. He mentions the use of a "flat probe" and a "20 inch sound(?).Floyd Riebe (Riebe)He first saw the body when the casket was opened up and he started taking pictures of the body and the procedures. Riebe

We just need more images from NIST's computer model of the bullet.

Could CE 399 have been substituted AFTER Elmer Todd's Warren Commission testimony?

I feel like the official story on CE 399 is now "Elmer Todd handled the real stretcher bullet, but he forgot to write his initials on it, and just forgot about it or lied about it later because a Government man didn't want to admit that he forgot a crucial step in handling evidence".

Allow me to provide a bonus smoking gun of basic logic that debunks modern psychology: No matter the quality of your psychological data, it will just become outdated in about 5 years maximum time because of how quickly human culture changes. And if you want to argue that a specific trait is biologically inherent in all people and not just cultural, then gathering evidence to prove that is almost always a colossal or impossible challenge.

Strange that the research community only now seems to be really embracing the Elmer Moore connection. Hopefully soon we can get a scan of 157-10005-10280 .

That may be the sales pitch they give in college courses, but they do not practice what they preach. They show their true self when they waste money on pointless "experiments" which prove nothing, like when College students earn extra credit by interviewing eachother and their "data" gets published in a journal like it's Albert Einstein. They show their true self when they throw people in prison for no solid reason or force them to take medication or control them in other ways, like when people are forced to talk to a therapist despite not wanting to, which is harassment and torture. They show their true self when they try to trick people into accepting a political or philosophical opinion as fact. There is no separation of science and politics. The human rights abuses of psychology is such a horrible holocaust going on right now, and there is a N@zi concentration camp in every large hospital in the world. I now understand Jack Ruby's strange outbursts when he would say things like that.

Do you or does anybody have the following document digitized: 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

Here are two examples of how basic logic can debunk modern psychology: 1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The human brain is the most complicated object in the universe that we know of.. Therefore, anybody claiming to have a firm grasp on the human mind needs to provide extraordinary evidence. Psychology is almost entirely self-reported data going through several fallible filters. Not only is self-reported data inherently not that objectively valuable, but it is also difficult to obtain high-quality self-reported data. In most cases, self-reported data should not be counted as "extraordinary evidence". 2. What psychiatrists call a "diagnosis" just describes a correlation of behaviors, not necessarily the cause of the behavior. So, what is a "behavior" when it comes to psychology? If a professional actor was acting in a scene, that would not count as a "behavior" which could lead to a diagnosis. But aren't we all "acting" to an extent in our day-to-day lives? There is no doubt that people express themselves on a spectrum ranging from their true feelings to acting a role. So, there is no reason to think that it is accurate to believe in the modern concept of "psychological diagnosis". Sounds more like something a cult would do. In fact, modern psychology just seems like a scam to make people ashamed of themselves, like how religion often makes people shamed.

Never heard of that, thanks for sharing!

Psychology is more of a religion than a science, and any "tests" they claim to have should be treated with extreme skepticism. Mental healthcare workers are all guilty of shoving their own personal, political, and philosophical opinions down people's throat in a very unnecessary way, and calling it objective fact. ALSO JFK researchers should be skeptical of those "mental health reports" of Oswald and other figures in the assassination - they probably lie in their reports as often as the Police.

I can't find pictures from NIST that show the whole surface area of the bullet model. That would probably give us the final nail in the problem of "Todd's missing initials"

Sorry, not true, not Robert Frazier's initials! See how clear the R and the F look when the bullet was digitally recreated in a computer https://www.nist.gov/image/kennedy-stretcher-bullet-digital

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305144

The Pentagon destroyed it's records on the JFK assassination?

The forensic evidence part was mostly good, although some issues are oversimplified like the chain of custody for CE 399, or the location of the back wound, or the appearence of the throat wound, or the throat wound ignorance story. Do we now have color footage of the Limousine which some have claimed shows a hole in the windshield if you squint real hard? It is not suspicious that there is a version of the autopsy face sheet without Burkley's signature - Burkley probably just made some copies before he wrote that. That signature doesn't necessarily come from 11/22. I'm sorry, but Doug Horne citing Michael Kurtz on Burkley was just painful. Kurtz was debunked straight to the moon by Pat Speer. And Robert Knudsen as a witness? idk. I am at last glad to have a screenshot of the face sheet where you can tell the difference between the pen and pencil markings. As James Jenkins claimed, it was proper protocol to draw face sheets with only a pencil. The part in Kennedy's face sheet that's filled in with a pen is the crucial notation of 14 centimeters below the mastoid process.

Although Perry told the Warren Commission that he used a scalpel to slice through the strap muscles, the pathologists failed to describe any surgical defect on the strap muscles - the pathologists did report some bruising of the strap muscles, but I could not find any mention of surgical cuts.

Having trouble assembling a definitive list of witnesses who made statements suggesting that Clay Shaw used the name Clay Bertrand.

Bringing up the autopsy would be cheating. Better to just let the discussion focus on how suspicious the New Orleans connection is.

Do Dean's lies seem like the "give me attention" variety, or the "covering something up" variety?

Did he say anything about Harold Weisberg's quote from Dean Andrews admitting that "Clay Bertrand" was Clay Shaw?

Harrison Livingstone's books have recently been made into ebooks available online for borrowing. I found this part in Killing The Truth about Robert Groden alleged 1979 interview with Perry: [...p. 431, Chapter 14. Robert Groden] What followed was an avalanche of supporting documentation from Livingstone. It included: 1. Statements by Groden concerning a 1979 meeting with Dr. Malcolm Perry and Perry's shock at the size of the tracheotomy. (The wound is only partially visible in two of Groden's five pictures.) [...p. 436] Groden's Color Autopsy Pictures Here follows the story of how Groden obtained his color autopsy photographs as Groden told it in sworn testimony to Kevin Brennan. [...p. 448-452] Q. Did you do anything else to test the hypothesis? A. There was a time when we brought copies of the autopsy photographs and diagrams to Dr. Malcolm Perry in New York City, myself and two reporters or two employees, one reporter, and I think a photographer and editor for the Baltimore Sun, and we showed the items to him. [...] Q. Other than the visit to Dr. Malcolm Perry, and the requests to bring the doctors from Parkland in, are these all the things you did to test your hypothesis? A. You made a statement that I'm not sure would be representative correctly in the record. Q. All right. A. The majority of the work that I did was for the House Committee. The interview with Dr. Perry, which was set up by the two members of the Baltimore Sun, was not for the House Committee. It was a totally separate issue, and they had set it up and contacted me, and I met them in New York City on 86th Street and Second Avenue, and we drove down by taxicab to New York Hospital, where we met Dr. Perry in his office. Q. Who was Dr. Malcolm Perry? A. Dr. Perry was the doctor who performed the tracheotomy on President Kennedy's throat. Q. That is at Parkland? A. That's correct. Q. When they were trying to save his life? A. That is correct. Q. Did you speak to Dr. Perry that day? A. Yes, I did. Q. Who else was present when you spoke with Dr. Perry? A. I don't remember the names of the two people I know that one of the people involved in setting this up was Jeff Price, but I don't know whether he was physically there or not. There were only two others. They both worked for the Baltimore Sun. At the time that we met Dr. Perry, Dr. Perry gave me his business card, which I still have, and immediately after the interview we went down to a coffee shop directly across from New York Hospital, sat in the corner booth and discussed. They were very excited, because Dr. Perry had told us that the autopsy photographs did not represent the President's wounds as he left them. Q. When was this visit to Dr. Perry? A. I don't have a record of the specific date. Q. How about a month and a year, a season of the year? A. I would say in all probability, it was winter, because it was freezing cold. It had to be very late in 1978 or very early 1979. Q. Did you bring any photographs or photographic material with you to this visit with Dr. Perry? A. Yes. Q. What did you bring? A. I do not remember the exact specific items that I brought, but as I recall, I brought the photograph that is in question as to the—that we have been speaking about, however it's referred to, the right superior. Q. Superior right photograph? A. Superior right profile photograph of the back of the head, diagram; as I recall, I brought the diagram or drawing done by Dr. Robert McClelland, showing the exit wound of the President's head and, I believe I brought a Xerox of a medical illustration done by one of the House Assassinations Committee. She was their artist. Q. So, you know of two autopsy photographs you brought with you, or more than two? A. As I recall, those were the two I brought. Q. Where did you get those photographs from? A. Those specific ones? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall. I don't know if they were originals or duplicates. They weren't camera originals. Whether there were my originals or duplicates, I don't recall. Q. Had you made the five copies with the permission of Mr. Gold-smith or someone else before this visit to Dr. Perry? A. I believe so. Q. Were the two photographs that you took with you two of the copies that had been made of the five photographs? A. I'm not sure I understand the question. Q. You made copies of five color autopsy shots with the permission of Mickey Goldsmith or someone else? A. I didn't say with the permission of Mickey Goldsmith. I said I think it might have been Mickey Goldsmith. Q. Right, I didn't finish my question. A. I'm sorry. Q. With the permission of Mickey Goldsmith or someone else, you made those copies of five photographs, sometime in 1978, you believe? A. I would say that's correct. Q. My question is: Were the two photographs that you brought with you two of the copies of those five copies that you made? A. They were either my originals or copies of the copies. Q. Did you tell anyone from the Committee staff before you went to see Dr. Perry that you intended to go see him? A. No. Q. Why not? A. Because at that time, I no longer trusted the House Committee. […] Q. In the winter of 1978 or 1979, when you went to see Dr. Perry, were you in a chain of command? A. No. As I said, I did that on my own.

Maybe somebody who has one of Mark Crouch's original black and white sets of printed copies, which were on sale at one point, can have then scanned using high-quality scanning equipment.