-
Posts
2,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
2 minutes ago, Stu Wexler said:
Steve you are missing the point so let me clarify it. Elmer Todd initialed *a* bullet recovered from Texas. He later identified his initials on *that same* bullet. If that bullet were CE399 his initials should have been etched in like everyone else who later received it. They are not. What happened to them? You have to argue that they faded away such that no one who has seen it, both live and in high res photos (that you yourself can look at) can find them. Yet initials for other people at the lab who engraved their initials at the same time as Todd, per FBI procedure, are on CE399 and all the other ballistics material those lab techs engraved. So you would have to believe Todd's initials disappeared while the others' markings somehow stood the test of time. *Or* you can believe that another bullet came from Dallas, the one Elmer Todd engraved, is not CE399 and was removed from the evidence stream. Which one is more likely?
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".
-
On 11/14/2021 at 11:08 AM, W. Niederhut said:
Actually, Micah, this isn't accurate at all.
The subject is not really relevant here but, briefly, the diagnoses of modern descriptive psychiatry were formulated by long term clinical observations of syndromes and the correlated courses of various mental illnesses-- viz., schizophrenia (i.e., dementia praecox) manic depression, melancholia, systematized paranoia, etc.
The father of modern descriptive psychiatry was Emil Kraeplin, whose foundational Lectures on Clinical Psychiatry became the basis of the modern DSM. His diagnostic classification of psychiatric disorders was based on 40 years of careful observations in a Munich psychiatric hospital.
A related foundational work was Ricard Von Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis-- a vast compilation of (mostly European) clinical case reports-- which served as the basis for the DSM classification of sexual paraphilias.
The original DSM has been repeatedly refined during the past few decades, incorporating more data about syndromes -- phenomenological, epidemiological, familial, genetic, and, increasingly, biological correlates of psychiatric disorders.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
I don't think it is.
He sent me that in hard copy as part of the pre-interview process.
Let me say this about Jim G.
Because I had done the prep work I did the interview with him in LA. His information was so startling that when Oliver overheard it, he walked out of his office and took a seat next to me and started asking questions also. So in the transcript, you can briefly see both of us questioning him. (This will be in the book of the film)
He told us this: I am revealing more to you than I did the Church Committee. It was just too disturbing at the time.
He also related to me a weird incident that occurred to him and his then wife after his meeting with Elmer Moore that had an intimidating effect on him.
After doing this interview with him, I am convinced that Moore could have been indicted as an accessory after the fact. I think this is the reason Moore showed up at the Church Committee hearings with a lawyer in hand.
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 .
-
34 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:
I don't think anyone is claiming the human mind is even nearly fully explored. Like science, it's people's best guess so far. So, there is no debunking there, Micah, just a pointing out that it's incomplete.
@W. Niederhut is probably going to disagree here, as it's his trade. I have two good friends in the profession also, one IMHO is much better than the other but, that's the same in any field. You have a cynical view of it but, you could apply your logic to many professions. To me, your depiction is the social worker in Joker (2019) that Arthur (Phoenix) goes to see. Basically a person taking the money, doing nothing constructive, they don't care.
I don't share your view on making people ashamed of themselves. I don't think that's the purpose at all, to me its helping people work through complex issues that are holding them back or making them suffer, and rebuilding them to give them the best life possible. That's a patient/Dr relationship. Psychology is also those people at Guantanamo Bay, breaking people down using Bideman's chart of coercion, or your government propagandists giving people free beer, burgers and hookers to take a covid shot. It's a broad field with different applications.
In my own experience as a non-clinician, I managed to work through a friend's father issues this summer, over a period of months, she hated men, was combative and hostile. After a time she began to pacify and make peace with her past, with her father's wrongdoing, and generally had a different outlook on men. She returned home, some 500 miles away and her mother immediately noticed she was like a different person. I was only using psychology that I learnt in books. I think a good psychologist is worth their weight in gold IMHO.
Cheers
ChrisThat 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.
-
10 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
It is now available on Amazon Prime and Showtime streaming. It will be on TV via Showtime on 11/22/21. It will be on DVD and BLU RAY in February 2022.
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
-
11 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
Hey Micah.
There are also those that claim science is a religion in the present day. It’s all open to abuse and corruption. Psychology amply explains the social conditioning that takes place, the coercion, human susceptibility to propaganda, interrogation techniques etc. If we don’t have psychology, then it’s just a mystery. It can’t be just a mystery as the methods work and are repeated time and time again with tremendous effectiveness.
Chris
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.
-
18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:
Stu Wexler also privately informed me that two well-known names did go to the National Archives to check the artifact, C399, in person, and found no Elmer Todd initials. And without any question, in-person examination of the artifact is superior to any photograph.
Never heard of that, thanks for sharing!
-
8 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:
It might be nice if political parties stopped offering up candidates that are 70+. Cognitive decline technically starts at around 30 years old. Our expectations are perhaps completely wrong expecting pioneers, great leadership and good judgment from people who are not only spent forces, but, that weren't remarkable in any single way as young or middle aged men.
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
-
-
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.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Bringing up the autopsy would be cheating. Better to just let the discussion focus on how suspicious the New Orleans connection is.
-
2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
No, but then Dean Andrews said so many things to any number of people that he really has no credibility at this point.
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?
-
On 10/26/2021 at 5:09 PM, David Lifton said:
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.
-
9 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:
Are these actually colorized?
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.
-
3 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Hi Micah, many thanks for your research.
Although I should add that Tom Robinson, on top of the questionable story about arriving early to the autopsy, told the ARRB that he thought the large defect on the photos was the surgery performed by the pathologists sawing the skull, not the original head wound. But, I think David here said that he believes Tom Robinson was already aware of the body alteration theory before he started telling that story.
-
Just now, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Hi David, I am challenging your theory as I sense a far simpler alternative. It's possible your new book will dispose of my proposal but what you have thus far written does not. Your quote above from Hulmes has another interpretation to the one you are ascribing. He could be saying 'that is a ridiculous suggestion... I' d like to know by whom it was done etc etc' and not admitting that surgery took place, as you propose.
Hulmes, as far as I'm aware, did not parade his horror at pre-autopsy surgery in any testimony, why not? What he did do, was accept, reluctantly, his evidence didn't match prevailing thought. I am referring to his HSCA testimony in the alleged rear entrance wound. He also minimised what he claimed was necessary to prepare the skull for autopsy. The Sibert and O'Neil report on his statement at the autopsy can also have an alternative meaning than the one ascribed by you. Hulmes may have been making a somewhat flippant observation, faced with massive head damage, that it looked like you would need surgery to create such damage. Thus the comment was descriptive of the scene, not an accurate description of what was required to create it.
Humes never denied using a saw during the autopsy. He told the WC that "virtually" no work with a saw was used. He told the ARRB that "we had to cut some bone". Nothing about the official story negates the use of a saw, even if Humes claimed that the skull was so fractured that pieces could come loose in his hands. Sometimes in normal autopsies, even a literal mallet is used to lightly tap the skull after most of the bone has been sawn through.
-
7 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Hi Micah, David Lifton posits surgery before the body arrives at Bethesda. I want to know if Hulmes altering the body In Plain Site is plausible as a theory. The time line seems confused to me. Witnesses talk of a food break ending at 5.30 as a reference point. That is a long time until 8.00 when my stomach would be referencing the next break! The testimony I have read makes it unclear what action had occurred before the room filled up. It strikes me that Hulmes could have altered the head wound by three cuts (Two for a notch and one front to back.) Have you studied the start of the autopsy timeline?
If you are interested in an explanation for how the throat defect could have been altered, maybe the photographs we have now were taken after alteration could have taken place on the autopsy table. O'Connor also believed the autopsy photos were altered to change the appearance of the throat defect.
The official autopsy documents do not mention if the organs of the neck were dissected or preserved. Dr. Pierre Finck, the autopsy's assisting forensic pathologist, said the wounds of the torso were never dissected, and the neck organs were not preserved. Finck also said that that their handling of the body should not be considered a "complete" autopsy by standards of the American Board of Pathology (Shaw trial testimony, 2/24-25/1969 [text]; Resident and Staff Physician, 5/1972, Observations based on a review of the autopsy photographs, x-rays, and related materials of the late President John F. Kennedy by John Lattimer). The autopsy was judged to be incomplete by the twelve-doctor Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. One of the reasons given was “The bullet track in the back and neck was not dissected, so extent of injury to the neck structures was not evaluated and course through the body not fully appreciated” (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 181, 3/29/1979, Medical Panel Report, Part IV. Critique of the earlier examination, with presentation of suggested procedures to be followed in performing an investigation and examination on the remains of a gunshot victim [text]). Dr. Finck said that he arrived late to the autopsy, after the brain had already been removed from the skull cavity (ARRB MD 28, 1/25/1965 and 2/1/1965 Reports From Dr. Finck to Gen. Blumberg; Finck's Shaw trial testimony, 2/24-2/25/1969 [text]; ARRB MD 30, Finck's HSCA testimony, 3/11/1978 [text] [audio]), despite him being more qualified than the other two at identifying gunshot wounds (Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, 2007, Book One: Matters of Fact: What Happened, Kennedy's Autopsy and the Gunshot Wounds to Kennedy and Connally). If there was no dissection, that would mean the autopsy was mishandled. However, there are some other statements that suggest the neck WAS dissected during the autopsy. If that were true, it would mean that evidence was collected without being properly reported on. It could also suggest a cover-up taking place at a time when the pathologists were supposedly ignorant of the throat wound. The 1968 book The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop contains the passage "...Fresh bruises were found on the upper tip of the right pleural area near the bottom of the throat. There were also contusions in the lower neck. Humes called his doctors away from the table and asked the Navy photographer to shoot additional Kodachrome pictures. The lens picked up a bruise in the form of an inverted pyramid. It was a fraction short of two inches across the top, coming to a point at the bottom. A few of the contused neck muscles were removed for further examination". Bishop's sources, as written in the epilogue section, included interviews with the staff from Gawler's funeral home, as well as Secret Service agent William Greer – "...William Greer, who drove SS-100-X, has retired from the Secret Service. I visited him at his home in Maryland. His wife was ill and it was not a time to badger a man with ugly memories, but he sat and said: “Go ahead. It will take my mind off other things.” The men of Gawler’s Sons were discreet and ethical...". On 1/12/1977, the HSCA interviewed Gawler's funeral home mortician Tom Robinson. Robinson may have indicated that he saw the neck being dissected, not just the chest:
Purdy: Tracheotomy. Did you ever hear any discussions that would have indicated why that was the case or what might have caused that, caused obviously the tracheotomy occurred prior to the time the body came there?
Robinson: Yes, those things are done very quickly. By nature of the situation, but it was examined very carefully. The throat was. All that was removed.
[...]
Purdy: Did you close up the head, did you help close up other parts of the body as well?
Robinson: Yes I did.
Purdy: The back and the front?
Robinson: I did the front, yes.
Purdy: Was there much that had to be closed up in the back?
Robinson: I don't remember that. I don't remember anything happened to really be done when I say in the back where the body had to be turned over.
Purdy: When they do the autopsy, they basically open the front up all the way and just look around and they don't have to open the back.
Robinson: ...open him up in the back.
Conzelman: In the region of the throat, when you were putting him back together, did you notice that any large holes other than what could have been through the autopsy?
Robinson: The tracheotomy.
Conzelman: Besides that?
Robinson: And if it was, a bullet wound.
Purdy: Could you tell any kind of a path that the wound had taken from looking in there?
Robinson: No, not really. All that had been removed.
[...]
Purdy: Let me clear one thing about the back. To what extent if any was that back area opened up? Or was that just all in tact?
Robinson: No, it was opened up. The brain had to come out
Purdy: I mean below that wound? In other words the neck and back.
Robinson: It was well examined I recall.
Purdy: In the sense of being cut open or being looked at closely?
Robinson: Yes, I mean looked at and cut.
Purdy: How big a cut, Where would the cut have gone from and to?
Robinson: I don't remember if it went off in many angles. It was not a nice clean cut.
Purdy: So there was a cut open in the neck to look in there.
Robinson: They had this all cut.
Purdy: How far down on the back of the neck did they cut open?
Robinson: That's what's bothering me, I can't recall whether you would say they went into the back or not. I remember seeing the back.
Purdy: So you had to close up the work they did on the neck.
Robinson: Yes, it seems to me that Ed did that.
Purdy: So you don't recall anything
Robinson: You can't have three needles in the same area, somebody is going to get it.
Purdy: So you don't recall anything unusual about the closing up, you don't personally or having talked to Mr. Strogle about it?
Robinson: No.
(ARRB MD 63 [text] [audio])
During a panel discussion on 4/6/1991, the autopsy's laboratory technician James Jenkins said the thyroid was removed.
Dr. Phillip Williams: Did they take his adrenal glands, do you know?
Jenkins: Took the adrenals, the testes, the pituitary, the thyroid.
Paul O'Connor: Right.
Williams: Alright, then, so if they took the thyroid, then they- they explored this [gesturing towards throat], but at no time did they say that this was a wound?
Jenkins: Dr. Boswell- the- the manner that we did the post was that we would do- we would open up the cavity, we would tie off the subclavian serenals and so forth. And then, we would extract, en masse, by severing the trach at the highest point that we could actually reach. And then, we take it all out, separate the organs- you know, examine the organs by- according to the technique that that particular doctor, whether he would saw such a heart or whether he would actually open up the heart through the vessels.
(Video, 5:34)
On 2/13/1996, Dr. Humes gave his deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board:
Q. Okay. For the thyroid over on the right column.
A. Yeah.
Q. There's no weight there. Do you know--
A. It probably wasn't removed. I don't know. Let me go back for one minute. I was told find out what killed the man. My focus was on his wounds. I didn't approach this like it was a medical death due to some disease or whatever. I was focusing primarily and almost exclusively on the wounds. So I don't know. I don't know if I weighed the thyroid or not.
(ARRB, 2/13/1996 [text])
Dr. Boswell’s ARRB deposition was on 2/26/1996. Strangely, when asked "Were the organs of the neck dissected?", he responded "Yes":
Q. Did you ever understand that there were any orders or instructions to limit the autopsy of the organs of the neck?
A. No.
Q. Were the organs of the neck dissected?
A. Yes.
[...]
Q. Do you see any of the organs of the neck being weighed on Exhibit 1 on the first page?
A. No, and the only organ in the neck would be the thyroid.
Q. Do you know whether the thyroid was removed from President Kennedy?
A. I don't remember that it was. It need not have been necessarily removed. I mean, it could have been examined in situ and not removed. But I do not remember.
Q. With there being a bullet wound transiting the neck, would it not be standard autopsy procedure to remove all of the organs of the neck?
A. Normally it would. The trachea, larynx, and everything.
Q. Do you know whether the trachea, larynx, and thyroid were removed?
A. I'm almost sure that we did not remove the trachea and larynx. I believe the lungs were removed separately. Normally you would take all the neck organs out with the thoracic organs.
Q. Did anyone request that the organs of the neck not be removed?
A. No.
(ARRB, 2/26/1996 [text])
Some statements seem to describe a surgical instrument being used to “probe” the throat during the autopsy, not just the back (ARRB MD 16, 1/10/1967 CBS internal memo from Robert Richter to Les Midgley; ARRB MD 135, 8/11/1978 HSCA interview of Robert Knudsen [text] [audio, partial]; (The effectiveness of Public Law 102-526, the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 : hearing before the Legislation and National Security Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, November 17, 1993, p. 222 [text]; ARRB MD 227, 4/8/1996 ARRB interview of John Stringer; ARRB MD 180, ARRB report on 6/21/1996 interview of Tom Robinson; 7/16/1996 ARRB deposition of John Stringer [text] [audio]). If this happened, it was not reported on.
I am wondering if the above statements could explain Paul O'Connor's "esophagus" sighting.
-
1 hour ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
Hi Micah, David Lifton posits surgery before the body arrives at Bethesda. I want to know if Hulmes altering the body In Plain Site is plausible as a theory. The time line seems confused to me. Witnesses talk of a food break ending at 5.30 as a reference point. That is a long time until 8.00 when my stomach would be referencing the next break! The testimony I have read makes it unclear what action had occurred before the room filled up. It strikes me that Hulmes could have altered the head wound by three cuts (Two for a notch and one front to back.) Have you studied the start of the autopsy timeline?
Unfortunately, no. Five years of hard labor and still haven't approached the timeline issue yet. I have, however, compiled every known reference to the "surgery of the head" statement in the Sibert and O'Neill report.
C399 and Elmer Todd's initials
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Could CE 399 have been substituted AFTER Elmer Todd's Warren Commission testimony?