Micah Mileto

Litwin has a blog promoting trans-exclusionary-radical-femenism.

Are we allowed to say the fact that Fred Litwin actively campaigns against gender minorities?

I wonder if anybody's made a good list of people who said their earlier statements were fabricated by the authorities. I know there's Mercer and Victoria Adams.

I know they are not the same person, but I did notice the NO boxer when I searched "Clay Bertrand" on newspapers.com.

Is there any possible significance to the Louisiana boxer named Clay Bertrand who was mentioned in the papers a few times in the 50's?

Around 2000, Shirley Martin's daughter had email contact with John Klein, as footnoted.

Has that really always been the main point of the New Orleans connection? The direct responsibility of JFK's death? I thought it was just proof that Oswald was an agent.

I think those links lead to an error page. Still in advance, thank you for them!

One thing Klein's book never cleared up was what happened to Shirley Martin's tape of their meeting with Oscar Huber. Martin's daughter claimed she recorded the conversation with an audio recorder running through her purse strap.

Is there any medical litetature suggesting that the skin on the back could have shifted enough to have a t3 wound look as high as it does on the autopsy photos? If it were possible for the skin to move that much, maybe one could argue for a t3 wound without the photos being faked.

I think the 9/11 Commission released some of their records online around 2007.

Do you have a snapshot or transcript of the pages in O'Neill's 2008 book A Fox Among Wolves where he says "some surgical procedure had been performed before the autopsy such as cutting of hair or removal of some tissue to view the head wound"?

delete

Sibert and O'Neill would say that, prior to their call to Agent Killion informing them of the bullet's discovery at Parkland, there was some speculation that a high-tech ammunition could have disintegrated after entering the back. When O'Neill was interviewed on 1/10/1978 by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he reportedly said "...some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A "general feeling" existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. In reference to the back wound, there was discussion that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" bullet (dissolves after contact). There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet" (ARRB MD 86 [text]). The report on Sibert's 8/25/1977 HSCA interview reads "Sibert said the doctors were discussing the amount of fragmentation of the bullet and the fact that they couldn't find a large piece. They were wondering if it was a kind of bullet which "fragmentizes" completely. That is why Sibert left the room to call the lab, to find out about that type of bullet", "Sibert remembered that in his call to Killion he had asked about some discussion the doctors were having about a possible deflection of the bullet through the body caused by striking bone. He said he thought this might have accounted for the extensive fragmentization" (ARRB MD 86 [text]). Sibert stated in his 10/24/1978 affidavit to the HSCA "...The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments completely. In connection with a possible deflection of the bullet entering the back, some discussion ensued regarding X-Rays of the lower body and the femur areas", "Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that would almost completely fragmentize" (ARRB MD 46 [text]). O'Neill's 11/8/1978 affidavit to the HSCA reads "When the autopsy doctor appeared to have no idea of where the bullet entering the back may have gone, the doctors began discussing other possible outlets for the bullet", "Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "ice" bullet, one which dissolves after contact. There was also no real sense either way that the wounds were caused by the same kind of bullet" (ARRB MD 47 [text]). When O'Neill was interviewed by researcher Harrison Livingstone on 5/20/1991, he said "...Jim Sibert went out and asked- called up the Laboratory to find out if, you know, if there's such a thing as an ice bullet, or a bullet that could disintegrate". When O'Neill appeared on a 4/2/1992 panel discussion at the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire, he said "...all of a sudden we’re starting to say, “Is it a magic bullet? Is it an ice bullet? Is there some type of a particular bullet which could occur—go in and melt? What happened to it?” Don’t know! Jim Sibert leaves at that time and says, “I’ll go out and make a telephone call to our laboratory and find out what the situation was". When Sibert gave his deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board on 9/11/1997, he said "...So, that’s when I called and thought maybe there was some type of bullet that would disintegrate. There just was no bullet that could be located", "When I talked with Killion that night, "Chuck," I said, “is there any kind of a bullet that would completely fragmentize? Maybe hit a bone and go down in the lower extremity of the body?". O'Neill said during his 9/12/1997 ARRB Deposition "...We thought it might have been an ice bullet. We thought it might have been a wax bullet, a plastic bullet..." ([audio]). Sibert told researcher William Law "...So, I said, "Well, let me go and call over at the lab, see if there is any kind of an ice bullet that might have fragmentized completely" (Law, In the Eye of History, 2004). When O'Neill was interviewed on 4/6/2005 by Brian R. Hollstein from the Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (SFSAFBI), he said "One of us decided that Jim would be the one to call the Bureau and he called the Bureau, the laboratory, and he said, “Look, we are here, we have a body and a bullet hole, but there’s no bullet. Could it be an ice bullet like Dick Tracy?". When Sibert talked to the SFSAFBI's Jack O'Flatherty on 6/30/2005, he said "They were thinking more x-rays. I said, “Well, let me go and call over at the Bureau Headquarters and I’ll find out if there’s any kind of a bullet that can fragmentize that they wouldn’t pick up... or the x-rays wouldn’t see.” I think they’d already x-rayed part of the back" ([audio]). By all accounts, after the pathologists were told of a bullet found on a gurney at Parkland, they expressed the suspicion that a bullet lodged in Kennedy's back and proceeded squeeze out of it's own entry wound and fall onto the gurney which he was laying on. Autopsy witness Paul O'Connor seemed to recall speculation about an undercharged round piercing Kennedy's back. When interviewed by William Law, O'Connor said "...And another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding, that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this bullet—that hit him in the back—is what we called in the military a "short shot," which means that the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn't have the power to push the projectile—the bullet—clear through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his sternum", "...As I said before, this shows a short shot, which didn't get a clean burn or have enough punch to send the bullet completely into the body" (Law, In the Eye of History, 2004).

While Kennedy's body was being examined at Bethesda Naval Hospital, the autopsy pathologists had trouble explaining why they couldn't find a bullet in the body to account for the wound in the back. They tried probing the back wound, which only revealed a path in the tissues less than the length of a finger. They theorized that a bullet lodged in the back and subsequently fell out through it's point of entry. Two FBI Agents attending the autopsy, James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, were tasked with recording information and retrieving physical evidence. The agents' reports failed to acknowledge a bullet wound in the throat which had been obscured by a tracheotomy incision (WC D 7, p. 280, 11/26/1963 FBI report). At some later point, the pathologists settled on the conclusion that a bullet entered the back and exited the site of the tracheotomy. Between this unknown period of time, lead pathologist Dr. James Humes telephoned Parkland Hospital's Dr. Malcolm Perry, who confirmed to him that a small bullet wound was seen in the throat before the incision was made (WC D 77, autopsy protocol [text]). There is a question of whether this contact took place during or after the autopsy. In Humes' handwritten notes (WC Vol. 17, p. 29), the autopsy protocol (WC D 77 [text]), and Humes' 3/16/1963 testimony to the Warren Commission (WC Vol. 2, p. 347 [text]), the call was said to have taken place on "Saturday morning" 11/23/1963. Technically, this could mean any time between 12:00 – 11:59 AM. The examination may have lasted past midnight, and the pathologists remained in the morgue until the body was prepared for burial by around 3:30-4:00 AM. When Humes was interviewed on 9/16/1977 by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, he said that he remembered the call taking place "11 in the morning, perhaps 10:30, something like that", only after he had time to go home, attend a religious function with his family, then return back to Bethesda Hospital (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 243 [text] [audio]). When Humes appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association, the article said the call happened at 7:30 AM (JAMA, 5/27/1992, JFK's death - the plain truth from the MDs who did the autopsy [text]). When Humes gave his deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board on 2/13/1996, he said he thought the call happened "...8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday morning" (ARRB, 2/13/1996 [text]). In contrast, Dr. Perry told the Warren Commission that he orginally remembered being called by Humes TWICE, and thought he was called on Friday 11/22/1963 (WC Vol. 6, p. 7, 3/25/1964 testimony [text]; WC Vol. 3, p. 366, 3/30/1964 testimony [text]). Perry's colleague, Dr. Paul Peters, similarly claimed to remember information from the autopsy leaking among themselves on the same day (Interview by Ben Bradlee, 5/1/1981). Autopsy photographer John Stringer said he remembered the pathologists contacting Dallas and learning of the throat wound while they were still in the morgue (ARRB MD 19, HSCA report on a 8/17/1977 interview with Stringer [text]; ARRB MD 227, report on the ARRB's 4/8/1996 interview with Stringer; Stringer's ARRB deposition, 7/16/1996 [text] [audio]). So did radiologist John Ebersole (Ebersole's 3/9/1978 interview by Gil Delaney, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy by David S. Lifton, Chapter 23; ARRB MD 60, Ebersole's HSCA testimony, 3/11/1978 [text] [audio]; Ebersole's 12/2/1992 interview by David Mantik, Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We Didn't Know Then about the Death of JFK, edited by James H. Fetzer, Appendix E [audio]). Likewise, William Manchester wrote in his 1967 book The Death of a President: "Commander James J. Humes, Bethesda’s chief of pathology, telephoned Perry in Dallas shortly after midnight, and clinical photographs were taken to satisfy all the Texas doctors who had been in Trauma Room No. 1". Humes was never totally clear whether he considered a bullet passage in the throat prior to his phone call with Perry (WC Vol. 2, p. 347, Humes WC testimony, 3/16/1964 [text]); HSCA Vol. 7, p. 243, 9/16/1977 HSCA interview with Humes and Boswell [text] [audio]; HSCA Vol. 1, p. 323, Humes HSCA testimony, 9/7/1978 [text]; Humes ARRB deposition, 2/13/1996 [text]). Autopsy assistant Dr. J. Thornton Boswell claimed they deduced this DURING the body examination, based on their observation of bruising on the right lung and pleural cavity (Baltimore Sun, 11/25/1966, Richard H. Levine [2nd print]; ARRB MD 26, HSCA report on 8/17/1977 interview with Boswell [text]; Boswell's 3/30/1994 interview by Gary Aguilar [audio, partial]; Boswell's ARRB deposition, 2/13/1996 [text]). Dr. Pierre Finck, the assisting forensic pathologist, claimed the defect in the throat was overlooked as a tracheotomy during their whole time in the morgue (ARRB MD 28, Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65); Finck's Shaw trial testimony, 2/24-2/25/1969 [text]; ARRB MD 30, Finck's HSCA testimony, 3/11/1978 [text] [audio]; JAMA, 10/7/1992). Finck's version of the story is the most suspect. Finck said he examined the defect in the throat and found no sign of a bullet passage, and yet the autopsy protocol and statements of Dr. Humes indicate that pre-mortem bruising was observed on the strap muscles beside the trachea, in addition to the bruising on the right lung and pleura (WC D 77 [text]; WC Vol. 2, p. 347, 3/16/1964 Humes WC testimony [text]). Also, the autopsy photographs (NSFW) show what may be a partial bullet hole in the skin around the trach incision, as noted in the 1968 Clark Panel report (ARRB MD 59 [text]) and the HSCA Medical Panel Report (HSCA Vol. 7, p. 93). Numerous other witnesses indicated that a bullet passage in the throat was discussed on the night of the autopsy – including pallbearer George Barnum (Barnum's 11/29/1963 statement, 8/20/1979 interview by David S. Lifton, Best Evidence), Admiral/Dr. Calvin Galloway (Arlen Specter, report on 3/11/1964 interview [page 1] [page 2]; HSCA 180-10079-0460, HSCA report on 3/17/1978 interview with Galloway [text]), Jim Snyder/Robert Richter of CBS (ARRB MD 16, 1/10/1967 CBS memo), mortician Tom Robinson (ARRB MD 63, HSCA interview, 1/12/1977 [text] [audio]; ARRB MD 180, ARRB report on 6/21/1996 interview), Lieutenant Richard Lipsey (HSCA interview, 1/18/1978 [transcript] [audio]; ARRB MD 87 [text]), and laboratory technician James Jenkins (9/23/1979 interview by David S. Lifton, Best Evidence; 4/6/1991 panel discussion [Video, 58:18]). What does it mean if the pathologists considered a bullet passage through the neck on the night of the autopsy? To say the least, they were incompetent if they didn't dissect or preserve the organs of the neck. Or the "throat wound ignorance" story could have been part of a cover-up for something the pathologists didn't want to talk about. The organs of the neck are not listed in the autopsy protocol or supplementary report. According to Dr. Finck, the organs of the neck were not removed for preservation (ARRB MD 28, Reports From LtCol Finck to Gen. Blumberg (1/25/65 and 2/1/65); testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw, 2/24-25/1969 [text]). Finck also said they didn't dissect the wounds in the torso, and 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). There are, however, some statements suggesting the neck organs WERE removed (The Day Kennedy Was Shot by Jim Bishop, 1968; ARRB MD 63, HSCA interview with Tom Robinson, 1/12/1977 [text] [audio]; 4/6/1991 Dallas conference [Video, 5:34]; ARRB 2/26/1996 Boswell deposition [text]). James Curtis Jenkins even said the spinal cord was removed (6/16/1991 interview by Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, Chapter 6). Autopsy witness Dr. Robert Karnei said he didn't remember the spine being removed. Dr. Boswell denied the spine being removed. When Dr. Humes was asked whether the spine was removed, he hung up (High Treason 2, 1992, Chapter 7 [draft], chapter 8; Killing the Truth, 1993, Appendix J). Either way, the throat wound problem alone is ample evidence that the pathologists were not telling the full truth about what they knew. Neither FBI Agents, Sibert nor O'Neill, reported hearing any discussion of a bullet through the throat. But they would not have to be lying for their statements to make sense with the rest of the evidence. For instance, maybe the pathologists just didn't communicate with them enough. In the same room while the body was being examined, Sibert and O'Neill spent some time talking with Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman, who sat in the front passenger seat of the Presidential Limousine. Sibert and O'Neill reported on Kellerman's claim that he literally heard Kennedy speaking after the first loud gunshot, exclaiming "Get me to a hospital" or "My God, I've been hit" (WC D 7, p. 3, report on first interview with Kellerman; WC D 7, p. 7, report on 11/27/1963 interview with Kellerman; ARRB MD 154, Specter report on 3/12/1964 interview with Sibert and O'Neill). If Sibert and O'Neill believed Kellerman, their memories could have been affected by the realization that Kennedy couldn't have been able to speak in that moment if he had just been wounded in the throat. Dr. Boswell openly disagreed with Sibert and O'Neill's information, suggesting that they simply weren't paying close enough attention, mentioning that at least one of them spent a lot of time on the phone (Baltimore Sun, 11/25/1966, Pathologist Who Made Examination Defends Commission's Version; Says Pictures And Details Back Up Warren Report by Richard H. Levine [2nd print]; 10/2/1990 interview by Richard Waybright, High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, Chapter 8 [draft]; 3/30/1994 interview by Gary Aguilar [Transcript] [audio, partial]; ARRB, 2/26/1996 [text]) - further suggesting that the pathologists had knowledge of the throat wound on the night of the autopsy. Not only did Sibert never really decribe being sure the auopsy was finished before they left, but O'Neill actually seems to have crafted a fake story about staying in the morgue long enough to see the body being restored. As shown in these links: https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvhs5/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_23_siberts/ https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drvi5r/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_24_oneills/ The existence of a wound in Kennedy's back was first leaked shortly after the same time members of the FBI received the 12/9/1963 summary report, which contained the reports on the autopsy from agents James Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill, and the 1/13/1964 Supplemental Report, which contained the lab results on the clothing. The first leak was a 12/12/1963 Dallas Times-Herald article by Bill Burrus headlined KENNEDY SHOT ENTERED BACK. Burrus, citing an unnamed source, correctly reported the official autopsy conclusions, with a passage from the back to the throat, describing the back wound as being "above President Kennedy’s right scapula – commonly called the shoulder blade" (Lifton, Best Evidence, Part II: A New Hypothesis, Chapter 7: Breakthrough, Distinguishing the FBI and Navy Versions). Burrus apparently had insider knowledge the FBI was unaware of - the Bureau said they did not obtain a copy of the official autopsy protocol until 12/24/1963 (FBI 62-109090-29, WC HQ File, Section 1; FBI 62-109060-4236, JFK HQ File, Section 102). Before receiving the protocol, the FBI only had the information from Sibert and O'Neill, the clothing worn by Kennedy at the time of the shooting, and the reports from the staff at Parkland Hospital. In a 12/13/1963 memo, the FBI even tried disputing the accuracy of Burrus' article by citing the reports from Sibert and O'Neill which claimed the back wound had no exit (ARRB MD 161). Lifton made comments on this forum stating that Burris' source was a person identifying themselves as Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore, the same person who visited Parkland Hospital and explained the autopsy protocol's conclusions to the staff there who handled Kennedy. Starting on 12/18/1963, more mainstream publications began running stories acknowledging the existence of the back wound (e.g. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Secret Service Gets Revision on Kennedy Wound After Visit by Agents, Doctors Say Shot was from Rear" by Richard Dudman; Washington Post, "Kennedy Autopsy Report" by Nate Haseltine). The FBI began publicly promoting the idea promoted the idea that the back wound had no exit and the throat wound was caused by a fragment from the head shot (PatSpeer.com, A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination by Pat Speer, Chapter 1b: Establishing the "Facts"). This was already the private position of some in the FBI - for example, a memo from Assistant Director in charge of the FBI Lab Ivan Conrad to the Lab's Special Agent Roy H. Jevons stated that the tears on the front of Kennedy's shirt resembled an exit for a bullet FRAGMENT (FBI 62-109060-1086, JFK HQ File, Section 14), even though the original lab report only said the tears resembled an exit for a "projectile" (WC D 205, p. 154). Eventually, it became understood that the photographic evidence from Dealey Plaza, like the Zapruder film and the Altgens 6 photo, showed Kennedy reaching for his neck moments BEFORE the fatal head shot. Officially, Kennedy's head was struck by only one bullet, so his body language ruled out the possibility of throat wound coming from the head shot. By 1966, critics of the Warren Commission were questioning the medical evidence which was publicly available. The critics asked why the official autopsy protocol had a different set of conclusions than the report from Sibert and O'Neill. FBI spokesmen stated publicly that the report was "based on the medical evidence at that time" (Washington Post, 5/29/1966), "the FBI report was wrong when it said "there was no point of exit", "The FBI agents were not doctors, but were merely quoting doctors" (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/1966). On 11/2/1966, David Lifton telephoned Agent Sibert, who declined to comment, saying only "The record speaks for itself", “...the report stands for itself, I think”, “...if you have any further question, I’d just suggest that you write to the Bureau Headquarters” (Lifton, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, 1980, Part III: A Search For New Evidence, Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum). When Lifton did try writing a letter to the FBI, the Bureau’s Assistant Director Alex Rosen wrote 11/16/1966 memo stating that Sibert and O’Neill’s report "sets forth information orally furnished to them by the autopsy physician" (ARRB MD 173). There were several similar memos responding to popular media that questioned the official story and referenced the information Sibert and O'Neill (ARRB MD 165; ARRB MD 166; ARRB MD 157; ARRB MD 167; FBI 62-109090-520, WC HQ File, Section 29; ARRB MD 169; ARRB MD 158; FBI 62-109060-4209, JFK HQ File, Section 102). On 11/23/1966, J. Edgar Hoover himself responded to a journalist's letter which included similar talking points (FBI 62-109090-539, WC HQ File, Section 29). Between a 11/25/1966-11/26/1966, various media outlets reprinted Hoover's statement that the reports from Sibert and O'Neill were based on “oral statements made by autopsy physicians” (Associated Press, 11/25/1966, Oswald Was By Himself Says Hoover; Washington Star, 11/25/1966, All facts show no accomplice, critics are told, FBI chief charges Warren Report is misinterpreted [scan 2]). The CIA's infamous 7/19/1968 memo "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report" attached a short writing titled "The Theories of Mr. Epstein", again with similar talking points.

Also, wasn't Vincent Salandria the one who wrote articles arguing that the official story Is physically impossible unless the single bullet theory is true?

Officially, no member of the FBI ever read the autopsy protocol until mid-December of 1963. Before then, the FBI was trying to push this idea to their fellow employees that a bullet barely pierced JFK's back, another went right through his head, a fragment from the head shot went down the neck to exit the throat, and the bullet that entered the back later fell out onto the President's stretcher. In fact, the original lab report on the clothing says that the nick in the tie is consistent with a "projectile" passing through it, but an internal memo summarized the report as claiming a "fragment" passed through the tie. After the FBI's internal reports featured the Sibert and O'Neill report and the lab report on the clothing, it became widespread knowledge that Kennedy had a wound in the back. Newspaper leaks started confirming the existence of a back wound. By a few days later, the FBI began reading the autopsy protocol and began seeing Kennedy raise his arms in the the Zapruder Film and Altgens photograph, which refuted their notion that one bullet could have struck Kennedy's head while also creating the throat wound. When Edward Epstein's book Inquest came out, it's appendix featured a copy of the Sibert and O'Neill report, which publicly confirmed that the pathologists originally expressed the opinion that the back wound seemed shallow. This is what the public already suspected from the earlier shallow back wound references (e.g. earlier newspaper articles, the autopsy protocol, Humes and Kellermans WC testimonies). After Epstein's book, the Sibert and O'Neill report was featured among other researchers books. Some naturally asked why the shallow back wound information was obviously different from the autopsy protocol's conclusions. Were the autopsy conclusions changed later to be politically correct? Lifton telephoned Sibert, who only told him "the report speaks for itself", "the report stands". Lifton tried writing the FBI. Media articles began discussing the discrepancy. Spokesman for the FBI responded, partially based on their re-questioning of Sibert and O'Neill, that the report was based on information "orally" furnished by the pathologists, but that their agents "were not doctors, but were merely quoting doctors". By the time of Dr. Pierre Finck's 1969 testimony at the Clay Shaw trial, it became clear that the official story was to be that the pathologists were totally ignorant of the possibility of a bullet hole in the throat at the tracheotomy site. If you want more info I can paste more with links and dates

Woah, never knew there was a goldmine stashed away at the University of South Florida.

Mark Crouch has also passed away. He was the journalist who befriended James Fox, who gave him and David Lifton copies of a secret set of autopsy photographs that Crouch had in his possession. Mark Crouch said that James Fox told him that Robert Bouck was seen burning some of the autopsy photos.

Hope it comes out!

As with JFK, there are any number of ways one could mix or match different multiple shooter scenarios. Blanks are just mentioned as one of many possibilities. There are a couple of witnesses who say they remember seeing bits of what looked like paper come out of the barrel of the gun as it was firing. Also, a flame coming out of the barrel which would be too long to match the length of the short flame that comes out when firing an ordinary 22 round.

I think people may be expecting this to be a dud, just like all of the other false positives, e.g. Acoustics, Malcolm Wallace fingerprint, etc.

Angelos Leiloglou is claiming that he can scientifically disprove the single bullet theory once and for all. If this is true, why isn't there more hype? The demo shown at the 2017 mock trial looked promising, with the Zapruder film fading over the 3D model.

Unfortunately for RFK, there was no film of his shooting, only witnesses. With JFK, there's a chance that with the Zapruder film there may actually come an era where "Illuminati confirmed" is literal in the physical scientific sense. Angelos Leiloglou's computer model of Dealey Plaza may or may not be the breaking point for the official story, as far as physical science is concerned about the lone gunman theory.

Why does Blunt only give a few researchers the stuff he found at the Archives? Why not post it in bulk all on the internet himself?