Micah Mileto

Why are there so many interesting HSCA medical interviews that we still have no digital copies of? One day I can go to DC to scan all of these things but I would need to gather resources first.

From JFK and the Unspeakable: Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony. " Moore said that in threatening Perry, he acted " on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters. "555 Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck."556 Moore admitted, " I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry. "557 However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching orders from Washington. " He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off. "558 In the cover-up, the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated. [...Notes] 555 . 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. 556. From transcribed copy by House Select Committee on Assassinations of taperecorded conversation with James Gochenaur, May 10, 1977, p. 22. JFK Record Number 180-10086-10438. 557. Author's interview with Jim Gochenaur, April 28, 2007. 558. Moore cited by Gochenaur. HSCA conversation with Gochenaur, May 10, 1977, p. 23. Also Jim Gochenaur's letter to the author, October 23, 2007.

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/11/19/as-50th-anniversary-of-assassination-approaches-surgeon-who-treated-jfk-remembers/ And like many, Dr. McClelland has struggled to fill in the blanks about the details of the assassination himself. He frequently references one book “of the 32,000 out there” on the event – JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, by James W. Douglass, which argues that military and intelligence agencies in the U.S. are responsible for President Kennedy’s assassination and the subsequent cover-up. According to Douglass, those organizations were upset by JFK’s evolving stance on the Cold War and, desperate to win, they plotted Kennedy’s death because he was “getting in the way” of their plans for a nuclear strike. For McClelland, that book seems to offer answers to the questions he’s been grappling with over the last fifty years – in particular, why his colleague, Dr. Perry, who also treated the President that day, would never speak of the assassination (“If you ever even mentioned the assassination [to Dr. Perry], he would cloud up and say, ‘I don’t talk about that,’ period.”) If you take Douglass at his word, a Secret Service agent approached Perry shortly after he’d given a description of JFK’s wounds to the media – when he’d pointed to his neck and seemed to imply that the entrance wound was there. That agent supposedly threatened Perry, ordering him never to talk about the assassination again…”or else,” Dr. McClelland emphasizes.

Let's see, we have how many instances of medical witnesses being coerced against talking... 1. The story of Dr. Perry being stopped after his first press conference by a man in black who said "don't ever say that about, about that being an entrance wound" 2. Dr. Charles Baxter threatening to ruin the medical careers of anybody at Parkland who made a dime talking about the assassination 3. The autopsy pathologists being influenced by members of the military and the Kennedy family 4. The Navy gag order 5. Arlen Specter telling Dr. Ronald Jones about the unidentified "non-credible witnesses" to a gunman shooting from the front 6. Humes, Boswell, Stringer and Ebersole signing the document that said "Humes, Boswell, and Stringer signed a report stating "The X-rays and photographs described and listed above include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy, and we have no reason to believe that any other photographs or X-rays were made during the autopsy" despite claiming to remember other pictures being taken. Ramsey Clark claimed that he started re-investigating the assassination to "get ri of some of the trash" in Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas 7. The HSCA's Dr. Charles Petty calling Humes a "god-damned jackass" for not agreeing with their theory of a higher location for the small head wound 8. Gary Cornwell trying to coerce Humes to agree with the same thing Any more?

No such video. Sounds like you might be thinking of... PBS, Nova, 1988, Who Shot President Kennedy? [link 2] KRON, 11/18/1988, JFK: An Unsolved Murder [link 2] [link 3] 4/6/1991 Dallas conference [video, part 1] [video, part 2]

The JFK Lancer website is hardly working. Can't buy any DVDs.

On here and in the signet edition of Best Evidence, you mention a 1988 interview of Dr. Perry by PBS Nova. But Dr. Perry does not appear anywhere on that program, and I can't find any reference to such a Perry interview. Is this a garbled reference to Perry's 1992 JAMA interview?

We need an ebook version of the 5 volumes of Inside the Assassination Records Review Board that adds all of the updates Doug has talked about before.

Is there any chance McClelland is referring to something from Beyond The Fence Line? I have heard him mention that book before. I've never heard of any book that contains this story of Perry being warned.

Do you know of any special source for this information?

I just found a 2014 McClelland interview where he says the following, 24:06 in: https://www.parklandsurgical.com/home/2014/7/25/a-conversation-with-dr-robert-mcclelland Audience member: I read that Mac Perry originally had said that he characterized the neck wound as a quote 'wound of entrance'. And I also know that subsequent to that, to his dying day, he never spoke about it again. McClelland: He would not say anything to anybody, me or any other- anybody at all, he was just completely- said nothing. Recently I read a book out of all of the some three thousand books that are written about this, and apparently, according to the author of this book, someone had come up to Dr. Perry after he gave his initial testimony- or, not testimony, but initial interview to the many newsmen that were gathered in the grand rounds room at Parkland right after this event happened. And Dr. Perry had made a comment about this being possibly an entrance wound in his neck. And according to this book, and this again is, you know, maybe [inaudible], maybe not. Someone with an American flag in his lapel, you know, you know, you know, Secret Service man, maybe not, came up to him and he said 'Dr. Perry', he said, 'whatever you do, do not ever say that that was an entrance wound again if you know what's good for you'. Other than that, Not only did Dr. Perry never say that was an entrance wound, he never said anything, period, at all about it to me or to anybody else. And he left town right after this event and went down to South Texas where his mother-in-law lived.

Yeah, Sibert and O'Neill couldn't have stayed any later than 12:00 AM, and we know the restoration of the body lasted until around 3:30 AM. O'Neill couldn't be telling the truth when he described seeing Kennedy laying in his casket fixed up to look like he was sleeping.

O'Neill was almost certainly lying when he described staying at the autopsy long enough to see the restoration https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvi5r/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_24_oneills/

The government itself has acknowledged that the autopsy was grossly inadequate. Forensic science then and now requires a higher standard for the autopsy of a President. There was also the law broken in Texas. The only question is whether this inadequacy was by design to help the lone gunman narrative. We also have solid evidence that members of the Kennedy family were at fault for their disregard towards those gathering forensic evidence. There is enough sworn testimony to present this case, and there is also a lot of juicy information contained in unsworn statements through the past years. It wouldn't actually matter if a new autopsy uncovered no new information, because it isn't really a choice whether or not a new autopsy needs to be done. This problem is similar to how 9/11 truthers can legally prove, citing stuff like the NFPA standards, that the WTC did not receive a proper arson investigation.

What is the most legally feasible way an exhumation of JFK could occur? Also, would it ever be possible for an Oswald to legally demand the official rifle be given to them? You can use the government's evidence against them, to claim that Oswald owned the rifle, but use forensic evidence to establish the lack of basis for calling it a murder weapon. Imagine how much that'd sell for.

From the draft of High Treason 2: Since he was my partner, I know that his M.O. is denial. Now you see it, now you don't. He has for a long time played a shell game with this evidence. At times I was shown different views of the back of the had. In one of them, there is clearly a line of small black crescents, a half an inch long and a half an inch apart all the way around where he says there is a matte line--just as though a can opener had been operating there. I ask him what that is--"I don't know" he responds. Sometime later he hauls out a picture of the back of the head again, and I can't find the crescents. "Where are the crescents?" "I don't know. You imagined that. There aren't any." Well, Mark Crouch saw them too.

Interesting. What about the claim that Groden would play charades with his own personally-altered photos of JFK?

More on the alleged 1979 interview between Robert Groden and Dr. Malcolm Perry. From Best Evidence, 1992 edition: […Afterword] One doctor I didn’t see in 1983 was Dr. Malcolm Perry, the man who performed the Dallas tracheotomy. Shortly after President Kennedy’s body left Parkland Hospital, Dr. Perry held a news conference at which he stated—three times—that the President was shot in the throat from the front. (See pp. 71-72) The wound was “3-5 mm,” he told Humes the morning after the shooting. In 1966, Dr. Perry told me his incision through that wound was 2-3 cm. (See p. 278) In 1979, researcher Robert Groden, a consultant to the House Assassinations Committee, was present at an unofficial, privately arranged meeting when Dr. Perry was shown an autopsy photograph clearly showing the throat wound. Dr. Perry looked at the picture, shook his head from side to side, and then, on the condition that he not be quoted, gave his reaction: The tracheotomy was too large; it was not the trach he had made. He said the throat wound in the picture was “larger, expanded” and that his was “neater.’’ Dr. Perry said the head wound was not the way he remembered it either, and that the picture published in Six Seconds in Dallas (a picture prepared by Dr. McClelland and similar to my Figure 20 [left side]) was much closer. Of Dr. Perry’s reaction, Groden said: “It was one of the most vivid memories I have of this case. I knew it was important. I knew it was historic. Groden first told me of the meeting with Perry shortly after it occurred. He had honored Dr. Perry’s confidence these many years, but has now given me permission to quote what Dr. Perry said in 1979 because Dr. Perry has recently told the television program Nova that he sees no discrepancy between the tracheotomy incision he made and the tracheotomy wound depicted on the Dox drawing (i.e., the artist’s rendition of an autopsy photograph showing the throat wound. See Photo 35). From the 1989 book High Treason by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden: […Part II: The Medical Evidence, Chapter 2p: The President’s Head Wounds And The New Evidence Of Forgery] I wanted to show the picture of the back of the Presidents head to the medical witnesses in Dallas who had seen the body. I had seen what purported to be the actual autopsy photos, and thus possessed knowledge that had been denied even to the doctors who treated the President at Parkland. In 1979, I traveled to Dallas on a trip paid for by Steve Parks of The Baltimore Sun and was the first person to show some of the Dallas doctors the HSCA tracings of the autopsy pictures. Since then, myself, The Baltimore Sun, and Ben Bradlee, Jr. of The Boston Globe have compiled the testimony of a number of additional witnesses, and the startling conclusion of their work is clear: The autopsy pictures are, fake, and hold the key to the true nature of the plot which took the life of the President. (The research conducted by the Globe and the Sun was subsequently turned over to me and placed in the JFK Library in Boston.) […] In 1979, Dr. Malcolm Perry - one of the most important witnesses among the Parkland doctors - who refused to be interviewed by Ben Bradlee, Jr., was shown copies of the alleged autopsy photos by Jeff Price of The Baltimore Sun. It was an emotional encounter and Dr. Perry was moved almost to tears. He said the pictures of the back of the head were not accurate. In an article in The Baltimore Sun headlined "The Bullets Also Destroyed Our Confidence"55 Steve Parks wrote: "Why were the doctors at Parkland Hospital who tried to save the president's life and who declared him dead never consulted about the autopsy (conducted by military authorities), and why have the autopsy photos never been shown to these doctors? Earlier this year, during an investigation by the Sun, one doctor who had been given access to copies of the photos said the president's head wounds in the pictures were not consistent with what he recalled seeing that day 16 years ago." This was Dr. Malcolm Perry. […] The Sun published the fact that Dr. Malcolm Perry hotly denounced the picture, but the Globe, although they did not interview him, said that he supported the autopsy photograph. They did not print the denial or any reference to this doctor. In any event, the Sun's intensive interview with Dr. Perry was conducted in front of witnesses, and the results corroborated the testimony of every other witness who had been interviewed up to that time. The Assassinations Committee interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978, but did not show him the autopsy photographs. Perry told the interviewer that he had looked at the head wound and that it "was located in the 'occipital parietal' region of the skull and that the right posterior aspect of the skull was missing."' It does not make sense that Dr. Perry and the only other two Parkland doctors (Jenkins and Carrico) the Committee interviewed would have somehow changed their observation that the back of the head was missing—for The Boston Globe. In addition, the testimony of Dr. Perry to the Warren Commission, and his extensive first-hand experience with the wounds, makes any later retraction attributed to him not credible. From the Baltimore Sun, 11/18/1979, The bullets also destroyed our confidence by Steve Parks: […] Why were the doctors at Parkland Hospital who tried to save the president's life and who declared him dead never consulted about the autopsy (conducted by military authorities), and why have the autopsy photos never been shown to these doctors? Earlier this year, during an investigation by the Sun, one doctor who had been given access to copies of the photos said the president's head wounds in the pictures were not consistent with what he recalled seeing that day 16 years ago. From a 1981 report on interviews with medical witnesses by Ben Bradlee of the Boston Globe: [...] Perry declined to be personally interviewed by The Globe, but, like Carrico, did send written replies to questions in two separate letters. In the first letter, Perry said that while he gave only a "cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions." the autopsy photograph "seems to be consistent with what I saw." In his second letter, Perry simply reiterated that he did not make a careful examination of the head wound, and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark. From the Boston Globe, 6/21/1981, Dispute on JFK assassination evidence persists by Ben Bradlee: Some Warren Commission critics and other researchers have erroneously cited this drawing as representing the Dallas doctors' and nurses' sole view of the head wound. Actually, according to Globe interviews, they are not unanimous in their opinions or recollections. Five of the doctors and nurses agree with McClelland on the drawing and strongly assert that the wound was in the back of the head; four other doctors say that the tracing of the autopsy photograph shown them by The Globe is "consistent" with their recollection of the head wound. Two doctors lean toward this official view. while five others tend toward the McClelland view that the wound was in the rear of the head, but 'all short of giving it a blanket endorsement. Of the six doctors who said that they agree or tend to agree with the official tracing showing no gaping wound extending into the occipital region, five have, at one time or another, gone on record as saying that the wound did extend into the occiput. From an early draft of a chapter for Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2: How can Groden narrate the Zapruder film and not be able to answer the questions "What is that coming out of his face?" when the President is struck in the head with a bullet? "I don't know," he says. Since he was my partner, I know that his M.O. is denial. Now you see it, now you don't. He has for a long time played a shell game with this evidence. At times I was shown different views of the back of the had. In one of them, there is clearly a line of small black crescents, a half an inch long and a half an inch apart all the way around where he says there is a matte line--just as though a can opener had been operating there. I ask him what that is--"I don't know" he responds. Sometime later he hauls out a picture of the back of the head again, and I can't find the crescents. "Where are the crescents?" "I don't know. You imagined that. There aren't any." Well, Mark Crouch saw them too. In 1979, Steve Parks and I saw both a color set of photographs and a black and white set at Groden's house. Later the black and white set seems to have disappeared. He says he never had black and whites, but David Lifton and numerous others saw them. Groden doesn't seem to have them anymore. Maybe he sold them. He claimed never to have the Stare of Death picture, but both Lifton and myself recorded at different times having seen this unique photograph. Groden says that he personally interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry, an interview I set up, but Perry, Jeff Price, the reporter, and Steve Parks, the editor from the Sun, deny that Groden was allowed inside the interview. His pictures were not shown to Perry. The Sun (and most if not all newspapers) would never allow an outsider along on any personal interview, anyway. And Groden has begun telling a colossal lie: That he discovered the conflict between the X-rays and the photographs and wrote a memo to someone on the Committee about it. How come his finding is not in his long memorandum which they published- -giving him total freedom? Nothing in between. No painting. Lately I have found this sort of conflict in many of the facets of the evidence, and each time there is often an either/or situation, but no third possibility, no other ground to go, unless you look for it real hard. And now I am finding them, and for those who have co-opted this case, the answers I am coming up with seem to me to work a lot better. From High Treason 2: [...p. 121, Chapter 4, Parkland Memorial Hospital] Perry denied, in a letter to me, saying to anyone that the cut in the photographs was larger than he had made it. “I’ve neither verified nor challenged the accuracy of any photos.”36 [...p. 160, Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence] Dr. Crenshaw told me that the cut that Dr. Malcolm Perry made was much smaller and that he never would have made such a cut. The original report I had in 1979 from an interview I arranged but was not present for with Dr. Perry indicated that the cut was not the one he made. Dr. Perry will not dispute the photograph showing a two-inch cut, which Audrey Bell38 and all other Parkland witnesses-some of whom were filmed39-now have told me is accurate. Perry himself indicated to me that the photograph is accurate, though I admit the manner in which he did so was greatly convoluted and mysterious. [...p. 336, Chapter 15. The Autopsy Photographs and Evidence of Forgery] The incision is not as large as some critics have made it out to be. I had previously been misled into thinking that it was quite a bit large than what Dr. Perry had done, and that therefore someone had cut it open farther in probing for a bullet. But after talking to all of those Dallas witnesses who remembered it and to whom I showed these photographs, I cannot believe that it was enlarged. Without exception, everyone said that what is seen in the picture is accurate. Dr. Perry strongly denied that he had ever questioned the picture or even been asked about it, since the whole purpose of the Baltimore Sun visit I organized was to question him about the Back-of-the-Head pictures. From an open letter by David Lifton responding to a 5/19/1992 episode of the MacNeil/Lehrer report on PBS: In 1979 Dr. Perry saw for the first time a copy of the Bethesda autopsy photograph showing the large wound at the front of the throat. He responded by shaking his head from side to side, expressing great-surprise, and stating that this was not his tracheotomy incision, this was not the way he left the wound. The wound depicted in the picture was "larger, expanded"; his incision was "neater." Then, in a single word, Dr. Perry said a mouthful: Dr. Perry said he had left the wound "inviolate". (Dr. Perry used the word 'inviolate' on at least one previous occasion and in a similar context: in 1963, within days of the assassination. In a conversation with fellow Parkland doctor David Stewart. Perry expressed puzzlement that the tracheotomy he performed should have caused any confusion at the Bethesda end of the line. He told Dr. Stewart: "I left the wound inviolate".) From Groden’s 1993 book The Killing of a President: [...p. 77, The Medical Cover-Up Begins, The Throat Wound] Dr. Malcolm Perry (above) described the original throat wound as “a very small injury [3 to 5 mm], with clear cut, although somewhat irregular margins of less than a quarter inch, with minimal damage surrounding it on the skin.” He was adamant that it was an entry wound. When interviewed in 1979, he still maintained that the bullet had entered the President’s throat from the front, but has since refused to go on the record with this information. From Groden’s 1993 documentary JFK: The Case for Conspiracy: There was a wound in the President's throat, a tiny wound described by the Dallas doctors as a small neat wound of entrance no more than three to five millimeters in size. This laceration was not noted as a gunshot wound during the autopsy. At the start of the life-saving efforts in Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Dr. Malcolm Perry utilized the existing bullet wound in the President's throat and added a small three-quarter inch horizontal slit through the bullet wound in order to insert a tracheal tube. This operation is called a tracheostomy. However, by the time the autopsy began, that small neat wound of entrance became a gaping wound nearly twenty times its original size as shown here. Because of the mutilation of the President's throat the autopsies did not even know that there had been a bullet wound in the front of the President's neck. It was not until the morning after the autopsy was completed that Dr. Humes one of the autopsies spoke by phone to Dr. Perry in Dallas and learned for the first time that there had been a bullet wound in the president's throat. This notation was written by Dr. Humes as he spoke to Dr. Perry. By this time, the President's body had already been prepared for burial and could not be retrieved for further study. Dr. Perry and all of the other doctors who related any information about the wound on the day of the assassination said that the wound was one of entrance. For the first few hours following the assassination, we heard the truth. The official story that was released around the country was that the President had been shot from the front, that the bullet entered his throat and ranged downward into the body and did not exit. In spite of the fact that all the doctors who saw the President's throat wound said it was one of entrance, the Warren Commission elected to ignore their testimony. That really happened to the wound in the President's neck? When the body left Dallas, the wound was a small neat wound of entrance with a three quarter inch horizontal slit through it. At the beginning of the autopsy, however, it was a large gaping wound. Where did the enlargement happen and who did it? One possible answer is that a bullet entered the President's body from the front and someone in control was aware of this. The bullet would then have to be removed before the official autopsy x-rays were taken. If a bullet were discovered coming from the front, it would destroy the pre-determined myth of a lone assassin. From Groden’s appearance at a 2003 conference: […] As far as alteration of the body goes, the only evidence of that is the fact that when I interviewed Dr. Perry, he told me that he did not create that wound, he said- he stood up shocked and he pointed- pointed at the photograph, which I- again, I had shown him for the first time, he said I didn't do that. He said that's a butcher job. A tracheotomy hole is the size of a pencil to put a tube down there. If it leaks, it defeats the purpose. This hole is large enough to stick a fire hose down. It didn't work that way at all. It- it's sad but that's the case. […] From another conference with Robert Groden, undated, uploaded to Youtube 9/28/2021 by the Lone Gunman channel UCAG--Ai7Xh56gr6nxnX-24A: As far as alteration of the President's body goes, I believe that there’s there's- it's unquestionable that something was done to the president's throat. I interviewed Dr. Perry in 1978 and I showed him the autopsy photographs which he had never seen before, and he took a look at the throat wound in the photographs and he stood up at his desk and he was just shocked. He was silent for a moment, then he said ‘I didn't do that’, he said ‘that's a butchered job’. He said ‘I didn't do that’, and then he relived the entire tracheotomy, he stood up and he had his- what was supposed to be a- a scalpel in his hand and he showed doing it- doing the- the incision and said it was only about a little over an inch long he says- he just went on and on about why that couldn't have been what he had done. [...]

Some witnesses described a big long flame shooting out if the barrel, apparently too long to be consistent with the type of gun and ammo in the official story. Other than that, the "blanks" thing is largely based on logic rather than direct evidence.

Any progress in digitizing that Stewart/Groden stuff?

In the ARRB interview, or in another interview? BTW this is from the ARRB interview: I'd like to start out -- and that's the last major part that I hope to play in this discussion. I'd like to start out, if we could -- and maybe just start with Dr. Jones and then just go down the room -- of first where you were in trauma room No. 1 and what kind of view you had of President Kennedy in trauma room No 1, Dr. Jones. DR. JONES: I was on his left side below the arm looking to my right I could easily see the neck wound I could not see in much detail the posterior wound, but did not see any flap of skull or anything laying out to the right side I saw relaxation of the facial tissues & perhaps of the hair, and I remained on the President's right side during the entire resuscitation attempt. MR. GUNN: Did you ever go around and observe the left side? DR. JONES: Left side. Excuse, I was on the left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. DR. JONES: Was I saying right side? MR. GUNN: So all of your view was of the left side? DR. JONES: All my view was from the President's left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. Did you ever go around and observe the right side of the - DR. JONES: I did not go around to the right side. MR. GUNN: Could you observe any posterior wound on -- of the head from the left side where you were? DR. JONES: At one point after we had completed the insertion of the chest tubes, IV, and tracheotomy, I looked up over the top of the President's head and from that view was all that I saw. But with him flat on the table, I could not appreciate the size of that wound but did not see a lot of skull or brain tissue on the table, some maybe, but not just a tremendous amount and certainly did not see a flap turned on the right side. MR GUNN: Were you yourself able to identify any cerebellum or cerebrum tissue on the table? DR. JONES: If there was I thought -- from my vantage point, I thought that it was a very small amount. MR. GUNN: And were you able to identify one form of brain tissue versus another? DR. JONES: No - MR GUNN: Okay. DR JONES: - but did see the very small wound which I thought was an entrance wound to the head. That was pretty clear.

Come on, this dude dies and 1 month later his website no longer works? That website was actually useful. I know McAdams in the search results has confused new truth-seekers in the past, but his website was good for some things.

Old link down. New link: https://www.rareddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/ds3q7h/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_contents/ Version 2.0 coming soon too.

Is there any primary source on that Dr. Curtis interview you can share at this time, audio, video, notes, anything?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynE73TpKO9k Dr. Ronald Jones is still alive and kicking, I only wish somebody would've asked him about the temple wound information Jones mentioned in his ARRB interview. Dr. Jones certainly appears to believe the official story - why then did he speak of a left temple wound to the ARRB?