Micah Mileto

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.

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.

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.

I count at least THREE mental health professionals - Dr. Bernard L. Diamond, Dr. Daniel P. Brown, and Dr. Eduard Simson-Kallas, who examined Sirhan and agree with the notion that he was hypnotized into firing a weapon.

Why did they bother making this? Nobody who doesn't care cares, and nobody who cares cares. Who is the target market here?

Could Dr. Finck have been talking about Air Force general Godfrey McHugh?

An overlooked discussion that was not included here: "Deep throat Dave": http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DeepThroat/ Not a big loss. Obvious xxxx.

Did Dr. David Stewart tell you anything about the information about a wound in the left temple? He always said it was discussed among the Parkland staff but he quotes I have now don't specifically name any witnesses. Will any new information bout that be in Final Charade? I made this long discussion on information suggesting small wound(s) on the front of the head: This is as complete as I could manage to get it.

Dr. Mantik said that he thinks this dark path is a bone fracture (Medical Research Archives, Vol. 7, Issue 9, September, 2019, The Robertson Hypothesis: A Joyless Review [link 1] [link 2]).

I know Boswell's testimony is just Arlen Specter asking "do you agree with everything Humes just said? Yes? Good. NEXT". But, I am not sure which other witnesses were mishandled in this way.

I am looking for where exactly it says that some witnesses testified to the Warren Commission in the presence of other witnesses (which could have influenced the fidelity of the information provided by the witnesses). Specifically, I want to know if Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck testified in eachother's presence.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26815-small-wounds-in-the-front-of-jfks-head/

See here

I feel like that ID of Oswald was faked by Nagell by cutting it out of a published book, drawing over it with pencil, and recopying it several times.

Thank you. Here's what I find in Best Evidence, page 109 of the 1992 signet edition: I turned to the wound in the throat. O’Connor described it as “a great big hole in his larynx. . . . They said they tried to do a tracheotomy—it was already blown open. I don’t know how they could have done anything with it . . . there was nothing. The esophagus was laid open. . . .

The trachea was deviated to one side, not the esophagus. The esophagus is behind the trachea, so if it is true that the esophagus could be seen beneath the defect in the throat at Bethesda, there was definitely some alteration to the throat done.

That's crazy. Is there any more info about the Dr. Curtis interview you're ok with sharing at this time?

Huber has his own chapter, seen above. I feel sure that Huber wasn't talking about the right side of the head. The left side of the head was of course covered in blood and hair, which might have made it difficult to see any wounds that might exist, but Huber was quoted as saying there was a "blotch of blood" or a "blood clot" on the "left forehead". So, an area on the left front of the head where there was a small coagulation of blood that resembled a wound.

Thanks. While your website perfectly illustrates that the Dealey Plaza witnesses were describing the large head wound and not any small head wounds, there is a lot it doesn't include about the Parkland witnesses. Drs. Robert Shaw and David Stewart both claimed to have heard the other staff members discussing a wound in the left temple. Dr. Jenkins, at the very least, said there was blood on the left temple, that he placed his finger there, and that he suspected a wound there. Dr. McClelland said that he heard Jenkins say "there's a wound in the left temple" (in another version of the story, he said he just heard Jenkins say "there's a wound here" while seeing the finger on the temple, and thought he was pointing to a small wound). Dr. Ronald Jones inexplicably told the ARRB that him and Dr. Lito Porto having some knowledge of a wound in the left temple, a story which he never told before or after since (Jones is still alive from what I understand, but I couldn't find a working phone number to contact him). Gene Akin, even if you want to call him a xxxx, did claim to see an "entry wound" in the "forehead", and also claimed a temple wound was seen by Dr. Kemp Clark. A couple of early newspaper articles printed unsourced claims that a wound in the left temple/forehead was seen.

Here is a pdf version: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7VkiCR50DhuXRpVjrYJj4BHoeH9Rs-W/view?usp=sharing This does not include the Dealey Plaza witnesses because they was already handled perfectly in Pat Speer's online book A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination, Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt. They were almost certainly describing the LARGE head wound, not any small wounds.