Micah Mileto
-
Posts
2,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
John Armstrong did not agree with the notion that the transcripts of Victoria Adams' statements were an outright forgery. https://blackopradio.com/archives2021.html show #1030, 2/18/2021
-
The Gawlers people were also interviewed by William Manchester for his 1967 book. Some of Manchester's files, the ones that aren't sealed until 2067, are about interviews with Gawlers employees. Hopefully when the university library opens up again somebody can make scans of these files. Im surprised researchers haven't pounced on them already. Too bad Connecticuit is too far away for me.
-
1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:
I`ve always wondered who was in the black Cadillac that delivered the shipping casket in the rear of the Bethesda morgue?Reports were that there were men in suits that were probably federal agents and the driver & passenger were wearing white smocks.Now a mortician might be one that would arrive ready to go wearing a white smock.
We do know that he was there early along with Ed Reed possibly witnessing a pre autopsy autopsy.
Maybe the black Cadillac belonged to Gawler`s funeral home that Robinson worked for?
So I wonder.... could he have been one of the men wearing a white smock?
We have many statements from the Gawler's people indicating that the only casket they handled was the Mahogany casket. https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvjkm/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_251_timeline_of/
-
Jenkins is also the only autopsy witness to claim to remember the entire spinal cord being removed. And the only record of him saying this are his talks with Harrison Livingstons, he didn't even mention it in his book.
-
37 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:
In Jenkins' original HSCA and Lifton interviews, there is no record of him mentioning anything about seeing a brain in the cranium, or the story about the pre-cut brainstem.
-
On 4/19/2019 at 2:30 PM, Micah Mileto said:
No matter how the skull photographs are oriented, they appear to show two small holes in the right temporal scalp:
I am wondering if there's any chance the point circled in red could be a light reflecting on a shiny object in the foreground, like a retractor. See all versions of the skull photos i could find: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK?usp=sharing
-
On 2/4/2021 at 7:30 PM, David Lifton said:
By any chance do you have any new opinions on the passage from The Death of a President that reads:
The call to the seventeenth floor was made by Godfrey McHugh. He said, “Bob, the casket we have is cheap and thin, it’s really shabby. One handle is off, and the ornaments are in bad shape"
-
The Death of a President (1967) has that mysterious passage about somebody inquiring about purchasing a new ceremonial coffin because the first coffin was "cheap and thin". The bronze casket was neither. Who knows, we might find the citation for that line once more of Manchester's files come out.
-
Idk, I bet that "body language analysis" can probably be placed in the woo pile. Just too many factors going on psychologically for any study to reasonably account for all of them. I'm also not sure about those "how to spot a xxxx" tutorials that get passed around our legal system as fact.
-
11 hours ago, John Butler said:
There was another thread that talked about this sometime back. Just counting the head wounds and other shots that people suggested, I think I came up with more than 3 or 4 shots, if my memory is right.
1. A wound to the back of the head
2. A wound to the head from the front
3. A wound to the right side of the head
4. A wound to the left side of the head
5. A back wound (an autopsy photo may show more)
6. A wound to the throat
7. A dent in the front windshield chrome
8. Collateral damage down at the Triple Underpass- James Tague
9. A .45 found in the grass
10. A bullet scarred concrete later removed
There are way more reports to alleged recovered bullets.
-
What special does this clip come from?
-
49 minutes ago, David Lifton said:
Pat: For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence. Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate. I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections Thanks. DSL (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)
-
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
And he is about to get a 1-2 shot after David Mantik.
Reading his book about Garrison is a real ordeal. Its so bad, I have to take a break about every other chapter for about two days so I don't get a migraine. But what does one expect about a book that was endorsed by Aynesworth, Gus Russo, and Paul Hoch?
One example: How can anyone review the trial of Clay Shaw today and 1.) Not even mention the testimony of Pierre Finck, and 2.) Not note the number of provable lies by Shaw.
Fred can. And that is why he got those endorsements.
Was there ever any good follow-up to Finck's statement about a "Army General" at the autopsy? If it wasn't George Burkley or Godfrey McHugh or LeMay, who could it have been? I understand that Sibert and O'Neill made the questionable statement that their report listed all of those in attendance. The official story seems to be that Finck was referring to McHugh and Berkley, neither of which were army generals, and that the Kennedy family were the ones using them as a proxy to interfere with the completeness of the autopsy.
-
1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:
Hey, Vince. I was thinking that the bulk of that footage came from The Men Who Killed Kennedy, but I realize now that was incorrect.
Can you relate when those interviews were filmed, and by whom?
Thanks, Pat.
That clip is from the 1988 PBS Nova program Who Shot President Kennedy?
https://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/who-shot-president-kennedy.html
-
"incised wound" - Dr. Boswell to the ARRB
-
On 6/12/2020 at 3:58 PM, James DiEugenio said:
If this is indeed an accurate from Garrison as quoted by Lifton, then it is one of the best quotes ever. Let me copy a previous comment of mine which is relevant:
The best way to combat censorship is to have people taught HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Take this to the literal extreme - "HOW to think" is NOT a pretentious dressed up way of saying "WHAT to think". I think it is wrong to blame the promoters of misinformation for the prevalence of misinformation. Do not blame the anti-vaxxer for the popularity of anti-vaxx information. When you see an argument in a forum thread, and one of the users links to a secondary source that is obviously biased - do not make fun of them for "believing" fake news. People need to understand the "two-step" process for fat-checking. First of all, it is literally impossible for a single person to know an objective fact. Their knowledge is only as good as their source. It takes more information to prove ONE fact than there is room in the human mind to recall information. Even if we posit something obvious, like "the sky is blue", we can never prove that to be 100% reality because someone could just argue "how do you know you aren't a brain in a jar being fooled into thinking the sky is blue?". It's like the speed of light - if the speed of light were the objective truth of reality, it would only be possible for a single person to get to 99.9999etc. percent. The blind spots in a person's knowledge could just be a confidence trick. There's a story is a person being hypnotized into thinking a $100 piece of monopoly money is a $25,000 check. A person holds the monopoly money up to their eyes and says "don't you see where it says $100?" and the subject insists "No! It's a $25,000 check!".
When somebody is seeking information about a controversial subject matter in history, I think the easiest way to research would be to start with an obviously-biased source. Then, they should try their best to fact check that biased source. BEWARE of sources that claim to be unbiased, like "encyclopedia" websites or "historical journals". THAT is the confidence trick. NOBODY can do the fact-checking for you, any one single source should only be considered 99.999% convincing MAXIMUM.I have no reason to think this is too much to ask of people. People should have a healthy sense of what they know, what they don't know, and what nobody knows.
-
Lipsey wasn't listed as an autopsy witness in the Sibert and O'Neill report, but the HSCA seemed to find him credible enough to list him as a witness in their 1979 report. Lipsey's statements were notable for a few reasons. He said there was a small wound in the LOWER back of the head, He said that the pathologists were aware of the defect in the throat as a bullet wound, He said that he heard the pathologists discussing the possibility of the throat wound being created as a result of a bullet entering the back of the head, and also he heard the pathologists discuss a THREE-bullet-scenario: one entering the upper back, another entering the lower back of the head and exiting the throat, and a third coming from behind and tangentially striking the right side of the head.
-
IMO this is this is the best way to combat censorship - teaching the fact that people need to be taught HOW to think instead of WHAT to think. Take this to the literal extreme - "HOW to think" is NOT a pretentious dressed up way of saying "WHAT to think". I think it is wrong to blame the promoters of misinformation for the prevalence of misinformation. Do not blame the anti-vaxxer for the popularity of anti-vaxx information. When you see an argument in a forum thread, and one of the users links to a secondary source that is obviously biased - do not make fun of them for "believing" fake news. People need to understand the "two-step" process for fat-checking. First of all, it is literally impossible for a single person to know an objective fact. Their knowledge is only as good as their source. It takes more information to prove ONE fact than there is room in th ehuman mind to recall information. Even if we posit something obvious, like "the sky is blue", we can never prove that to be 100% reality because someone could just argue "how do you know you aren't a brain in a jar being fooled into thinking the sky is blue?". It's like the speed of light - if the speed of light were the objective truth of reality, it would only be possible for a single person to get to 99.9999etc. percent. The blind spots in a person's knowledge could just be a confidence trick. There's a story is a person being hypnotized into thinking a $100 piece of monopoly money is a $25,000 check. A person holds the monopoly money up to their eyes and says "don't you see where it says $100?" and the subject insists "No! It's a $25,000 check!".
When somebody is seeking information about a controversial subject matter in history, I think the easiest way to research would be to start with an obviously-biased source. Then, they should try their best to fact check that biased source. BEWARE of sources that claim to be unbiased, like "encyclopedia" websites or "historical journals". THAT is the confidence trick. NOBODY can do the fact-checking for you, any one single source should only be considered 99.999% convincing MAXIMUM.I have no reason to think this is too much to ask of people. People should have a healthy sense of what they know, what they don't know, and what nobody knows.
-
14 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:
Jim, something STRANGE happened on GOOGLE around 2016 or so. From 1998-2016, any time you put in "JFK Secret Service" or some variation of the same, much of my work came up. In fact, one could argue I was the "king" of anything related to President Kennedy and the Secret Service on the internet.
Then, sometime in 2016, NONE of my work comes up on the first or second page EXCEPT my brief mention in a Vanity Fair article!! Nada. I went from dominating Google to disappearing.
Interestingly, I used to also dominate the terms "Clint Hill". "Gerald Blaine" and "The Kennedy Detail." No longer--Hill, Blaine and his book have major websites that blot out anything else.
Just as 2013 saw the media close the case, ever since then, Google and company have done all they can to shut dissenting views out. I suspect HTML/java script codes have been encoded--along with algorithms---to wipe us out (example: if I write Secret Service JFK, perhaps there is a code that cancels me out now).
Interesting item about Lisa McCubbin, Clint Hill's girlfriend and co-author of all his books + Blaine:
In July of 2001, Lisa gave up her broadcasting career to move with her family to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, where her husband was being transferred by his company. Who would have guessed that just two months later, on September 11, nineteen Arab terrorists would change the world.
A graduate of Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, Ms. McCubbin has been a television news anchor and reporter, hosted her own radio talk show, and spent six years in the Middle East as a freelance journalist in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Doha, Qatar.Later, as the Saudi government came under increasing Western media scrutiny, the Saudi Minister of Foreign Investment hired Lisa McCubbin as a media consultant to train leading business people and members of the Saudi government to deal with the Western press---!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not strange. Google has their own personal guild of butthurt gremlins being paid a penny a year to add trigger words to their list.
-
Don't bother trying to get mad at censorship, it will just cause too much mental stress. The left-wing free speech lover is an extinct species.
-
Elmer Moore personally called Dallas Times-Herald journalist Bill Burris and leaked the autopsy's conclusions of a bullet entering Kennedy's upper back and exiting his throat. David Lifton was personally told this by Burris himself.
-
I have always wanted to see a full copy of Humes' final HSCA testimony, which was filmed and broadcast on national television. David Lifton who was in the audience and saw Humes before and after, said that Humes' hands were literally shaking in anger - which I can only guess had something to do with the way they treated him for his description of a small wound in the LOWER back of Kennedy's head, rather than the UPPER location theorized by the HSCA staff.
-
8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:
Maybe the second most important point beyond the impossibility of his firing from inches behind the ear from several feet in front or RFK in the big picture of how. But not what Sirhan needs now.
He's been a model prisoner. He's served his time beyond what others accused of similar crimes have. He's an old man who will harm no one. He has earned the right to die free. I won't mention being used by His government in my letter.
It is true but sad when basic evidence that blows the case wide open is "not what Sirhan needs now". **** our Vice President-elect. Western exceptionalism is a mental illness.
Mortician Thomas Robinson
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I am not sure if Tom Robinson was correct in saying that he witnessed the entire autopsy. Maybe he arrived later. We do not have enough evidence at this point.