Micah Mileto

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks Sandy.

Hopefully that will occur.

Let me put it this way, we tried to get as many distinguished people as possible on the show.

I mean when you have a neurologist saying, this cannot be Kennedy's brain, that's pretty good.

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.

3 hours ago, Steven Kossor said:

Malcolm Perry actually spelled out E-N-D-O-T-R-A-C-H-E-A-L for a reporter in the 2:15 pm press conference to be certain that he was referring to the procedure performed by Dr. Carrico before Perry arrived at the ER, which involved the passage of a tube into the mouth and down the throat (endotracheal) to create an airway.  The problem was, Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube was incorrect (the cuff was inflated above the level of the wound, so it did not seal the trachea) and Perry removed it to do the tracheotomy incision in the neck to improve the President's respiration capacity.  Since JFK was already dead (he was "cyanotic" meaning that his body had been deprived of oxygen for several minutes), Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube sent the inaccurate message to the doctors who arrived soon afterward that JFK was still alive.  Perry's initiation of a tracheotomy incision, assisted by Drs. McClelland and Baxter, on a dead body was an action that Perry and the other doctors were distancing themselves from by the time of the 2:15 pm press conference.  The reports of "agonal respiration" filed by several of the ER doctors were apparently made to justify Carrico's insertion of the endotracheal tube, but the description of JFK's body and the extensive nature of his brain injuries at the time of its arrival at Parkland are incompatible with any respiratory (or circulatory) activity being present for at least a few minutes prior to the time Dr. Carrico inserted the endotracheal tracheotomy tube into JFK's throat.  His reasons for performing a medical procedure on a dead body remain obscure.  Neurologist Kemp Clark (who pronounced JFK dead) backed up Carrico's action when he later wrote in a Trauma text book edited by Parkland's Dr. Tom Shires, that the most important thing in a case of a gunshot wound to the head is to establish respiration; more important than controlling bleeding, apparently, according to Dr Clark.

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.

6 minutes ago, Steven Kossor said:

In my reading of Perry’s report at the 2:15 pm press conference, he doesn’t mention his tracheotomy incision at all.  He only talks about the endotracheal intubation performed by Carrico.  It appears that he realized that JFK was already dead when he cut into the throat and just distanced himself asap from the implication of that action by telling only about Carrico’s work (which appears to have fooled Perry & others into believing that JFK was still alive).  The tales told after 2:15 pm on 11/22/63 just muddied the water further in the search for cover.  Or so it seems to me.  

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.

On 3/15/2018 at 3:33 PM, Andrej Stancak said:

Dear Mrs. Cranor:

My name is Stancak, for your information. 

Dr. Perry could not see the mediastinum , the lungs or the pleura, from the level of the 2nd tracheal ring. This area is still in the neck, not in the chest. A wide incision at the level of the 2nd tracheal ring would not help in seeing the mediastinum either. Please view the anatomical sketch I posted in my previous post.

I am not a surgeon, however, I have conducted several tracheostomies in rats during my junior lectureship period at a medical faculty. I know how bleeding in the vicinity of trachea looks like.

You now see that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough for Dr. Perry to see the medial aspects of the carotid arteries, and in particular to check if there was any bleeding from the carotid arteries. As there was none, it was not necessary to make a longer incision than 3-4 cm. Even if Dr. Perry made your collar type of incision, which he never admitted doing it, he would not see the mediastinum from that level of the trachea. I have quoted Dr. Perry's statement which confirms this view. Dr. Perry saw frothing of blood with bubbles of air. The air could only come from the trachea or from the punctured lungs. He could exclude the trachea, and he could then infer on the source of the bleeding and air bubbling from their direction. It was on the right side, so it could only be the right superior mediastinum. I am copying again the relevant part of Dr. Perry's testimony:

Dr. PERRY - There was both blood, free blood and air in the right superior mediastinum. That is the space that is located between the lungs and the heart at that level.
As I noted, I did not see any underlying injury of the pleura, the coverings of the lungs or of the lungs themselves. But in the presence of this large amount of blood in this area, one would be unable to detect small injuries to the underlying structures. The air was indicated by the fact that there was some frothing of this blood present, bubbling which could have been due to the tracheal injury or an underlying injury to the lung. 

My mistake of not realising that an incision of 3-4 cm was enough to inspect the carotid arteries in the vicinity of the gunshot was admitted by me. I thought for a moment, from your description of the collar incision theory, that a wide incision was necessary to view the arteries on sides of the neck, and only later I realised that this was not necessary because the carotid arteries run in parallel with the trachea. A moment of stupidity on my side for which I apologise.

Of course, there is a variety of contradictory testimonies and also different views about the appearance of the frontal neck wound, and your view is one them.

 

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.

On 3/15/2018 at 2:38 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Not so. He did not seem to infer the presence of blood and air in the right mediastinum.”  He said he saw it there. He also said he saw no injury to the lung or pleural space.  He also said the blood could have hidden any small injuries – but he did say he saw the structures themselves.

 

What he did infer was that the blood and air in the R mediastinum could be indicative of a wound in the right hemithorax:

 

“I noted that there was free air and blood in the superior right mediastinum.  Although I saw no injury to the lung or to the pleural space, the presence of this free blood and air in this area could be indicative of a wound of the right hemithorax…”  (Previously I quoted Dr Perry’s testimony from Volume 3.  But this quote is from Volume 6, p.10:)

 

Of course we have no way of knowing what Dr. Perry actually saw. We only know what he said he saw. And some of his comments are more ambiguous than others.  The best we can do is present the most relevant testimony – and to not characterize it falsely.

 

 

 

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.

Just now, Jonathan Cohen said:

Yeesh. It's bad enough that Judyth Baker is billed as a "witness" .. a witness to what? Making up stories and attempting to insert herself into the historical record of the assassination?

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.

1 minute ago, David G. Healy said:

Digital cameras are quite the way to go these days... 4K-8K imagery, and you can edit a final in your closet if necessary. Look forward to seeing it, Jim.

--David

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.

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

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?

3 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

I also never heard the story of the autopsy pathologists requesting somebody more experienced than Finck, only to be rejected.

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

I also never heard the story of the autopsy pathologists requesting somebody more experienced than Finck, only to be rejected.

On 11/13/2021 at 4:20 AM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

 

No, the HSCA's Richard Preyer was shown on video saying "the pentagon has destroyed it's kennedy assassination file, and we don't know why that was done". What was that business?

Now that the west has nukes, the only possible threat the government and media can try selling to the public is a guerilla threat. So, every time somebody breathes it's terrorism. I remember when the left-wing disliked calling everything terrorism. Only ignorant people would think that the western militaries are threatened by guerilla warfare. Western nations with their nukes are too spoiled to know the meaning of existential crisis, so they think they can just throw away everybody's rights just because a pen dropped.

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

41 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

While she does not specifically mention Todd, she does say "I was able to discern the initials representing the chain of custody of item CE399." That chain would neccessarily include Todd.

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