Micah Mileto
-
Posts
2,012 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
What I think is so important about Dave's reply is the x ray he got from Chesser.
He puts it up near the end. It is Appendix 4. That is really good evidence that there was a frontal shot to JFK.
David Mantik will be on Len's show next week.
Will keep you informed about Litwin and me.
Does Dave or Chesser have an opinion on this dark path on the left side of the skull x-ray? Could it be a fissure in the brain, or just a bone fracture in the frontal-orbital area?
-
20 hours ago, David Lifton said:
I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption.
1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?
2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back?
Re Question #1: Answer: Because the Single Bullet Theory was the creation of the Warren Commission staff, and wasn't advanced until mid January 1964. (It was first advanced, as a 'suggestion' in a Dallas Morning News story in late December 1963. The autopsy occurred (in real time) on the night of 11/22; and the trajectories posited were unrelated to the timing problem was not apparent on Friday night, 11/22, at the time of autopsy. As far as the hole "matching" the downward trajectory: the original 'downward' trajectory was "in" the back of the head, and then an "out" (or exit) caused by a fragment exiting at the front of the throat. FYI: All this is discussed in B.E. Re #2: If you look carefully at the "early" Z film frames -according to Groden --one can see the body being thrust slightly forward--this, according to Groden. I believe there is merit to this argument, but I haven't analyzed it in detail. DSL
If we are to suspect the rear back and scalp wounds were faked, what about the "coagulation necrosis" descriptions in the autopsy protocol? Would that information be exaggerated or outright false, or maybe the tissue samples were substituted with samples from real cases?
-
There is so much more photographic evidence for dark shadows on the back of JFK's head, it just "seems" natural that the Zapruder film would show such dark shadows. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a pure coincidence, either - a multiple shooter conspiracy may take advantage of which direction the sun in shining (even if the Secret Service agents were all wearing sunglasses).
-
The EOP is where the cerebellum meets the occipital lobe. The brain photos don't show any severe damage to the back of the brain. the HSCA medical panel pointed out the obvious: the brain photos are incompatible with a 6.5 round from the Sixth Floor entering near the EOP. So either the EOP wound did exist and there was some kind of conspiracy, or the EOP wound didn't exist and at least 10 witnesses must be ignored (Humes, Boswell, Finck, Burkley, Kellerman, Stringer, Lipsey, Boyers, Robinson, Grossman) and possibly some physical evidence as well.
-
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
Thanks Ron.
Micah, Dave is a radiologist. IMO, that exhibit near the end that he got from Chesser is state of the art. I mean everyone should look at that.
And I think this is the first time it appears in the literature. Its radiological evidence that indicates Kennedy was hit with a shot from the front.
Dave's articles are not easy to do for our web master, but exhibits like that one are worth the work.
Has any medical professional confirmed whether the dark trail on the x-ray of the left side of the head represents a skull fracture or disrupted brain tissue? If it means missing tissue, that means big trouble for the brain photos which show no damage on the outer left side. And it could all but confirm a small hole in the left temple. On the anniversary, I will have a 100 page megapost on the left and right temple wounds.
-
4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:
Micah, the reality of the situation is that after John passed, his sister took ownership of his materials including the RFK manuscript on his laptop. With her approval Stu Wexler managed to recover the manuscript, he and I did a preliminary edit of the the material (we had both provided comments for John) and Gary Murr is slogging away at the immense job of a more detailed edit and integration of a huge amount of graphics. When that gets done it will be a major publishing challenge for JFK Lancer but the hope is to get it out in 2021.
A good portion of John's JFK materials was also recovered, we really have no idea how much and given that Stu has a full time job which is even worse during the pandemic there are no resources to curate the material. Ultimately it would be nice to organize and make it available but the truth is that all that sort of work these days is done by volunteers with no resources other than their personal time.
The good news is that much of both his RFK and JFK work was recovered, the path to organizing, curating and saving it is challenging to say the least . The intentions are there, that's about the best I can say.
Thanks. Nice to know it's in good hands.
-
The Lone Gunman Youtube channel uploaded the John Hunt presentation I thought I would never see, about the third headshot fragment. The third headshot fragment is a drop in the bucket of evidence that was recovered but has gone missing.
4 minutes in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngOEn17aWig
-
This review would've been better if Mantik just stuck to the ballistics.
-
I found this reference in Palamara's From Parkland To Bethesda:
“High Treason”, p. 460---“The first doctor to see what he said was a bullet entry wound near the left temple was Dr. Leto (sic) Porto.”[only reference to Dr. Lito Porto];
It's on page 336 of the 2006 edition.
This a quote from the 1989 edition of the book - before Dr. Jones talked about Lito Porto to the ARRB. And there is no other reference or citation for where this information came from.
-
-
Wouldn't it just take one spotter casually standing and blocking the view of the sniper?
-
2 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:
I am willing to listen to the argument that there was no back wound on the body when it left Parkland but I wonder if two questions can be addressed relating to the assumption.
1. To those accepting of the theory : Why wasn't the hole created to match the single bullet concept? Or any downward trajectory to the throat wound.?
2. To those rejecting the theory: Where in the Z film is the reaction to being shot in the back?
If the back wound was somehow physically faked, perhaps A. it was done by somebody who didn't know the surgical defect in the throat was made over a bullet hole, B. they originally intended to fake a frontal exit wound but ended up not doing so for whatever reason, C. they thought the fake back wound looked high enough, or D. they were incompetent in faking a low back wound.
-
On 8/21/2018 at 1:21 PM, Micah Mileto said:
Your proposed skull wound location can be right on top of the EOP. The bump under it could be the EOP if it's a slightly tilted perspective making it appear a bit uneven. The camera would then be pointed at the left parietal bone. The area in shadows with your skull wound location could be the lambdoid suture. Joe Riley's left parietal foramen dot location also perfectly fits this. The beveled exit would then be on the upper left on the skull.
I can't find any other anatomical landmark which could explain the bony bump in the cranium photos. The bump really does look like the external occipital protuberance, viewed from the side, with the center of the photo being the upper-left-rear of the skull.
-
25 minutes ago, David Lifton said:
Thank you so much for clarifying! I saw BEST EVIDENCE in my small local library the other day. I'm glad you're still around, and I'm thrilled that someone like you can acknowledge my existence, let alone type such long comment responses.
-
-
On 4/16/2018 at 10:56 AM, David Lifton said:
Micah: No, I do not believe they intentionally lied. Rather, I believe that Humes "faked" the end of the autopsy, essentially communicating "Its over, so you can go home now"; and then, after they left, other activities began (and by "other activities" I'm referring to reconstruction done in accordance with the approval of 'higher authority').
Its because of these new insights that my opinion of Humes has changed.
One really must hear the audio tape of my two conversations with Humes, in early November 1966, and most importantly, the second one, with the confrontational moment which occurred (as described in Chapter 8 of B.E.). . .At some point, I must set up a website, and put that conversation (or at least, that part of it) on the net, so anyone can hear it and make their own judgement. The fact is that that was the first time Humes ever learned that the two FBI agents who were present had written a report that stated that there was "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull."
His first reaction (of several) was: "I'm not responsible for their reports". Then, as I pressed harder, and aggressively asked him if he thought any such thing had occurred, any kind of messing with the body which involved "removing bullets" etc., and I asked, pointedly, "You would have told the Warren Commission about that"? He responded: "I would certainly hope I would!" And then, as I started to reply, and with considerable emotion (and volume) in his voice, he said: "I'd like to know by whom it was done!" (pause); and "when" (pause); "and where!"
Of course, people can listen to this conversation and interpret it differently; but it was very clear to me that I had scored a bulls-eye in my questioning; and he really sounded rattled; because I was phoning him in the context of a student doing a paper at UCLA for a law professor who had been on the Warren Commission; and that it was anticipated that there might be a new investigation; and, if so, what was he going to say? To which he replied (as I recall): "I don't know what I'm gonna say. I performed the autopsy (or "I wrote the report") , I gave sworn testimony, (pause) and that is the end of it!"
Dr. Humes remained close with Dr. Boswell throughout the rest of their lives; and when Prof. Liebeler flew to Washington, later in November, and attempted to see Boswell, he refused to see him. Another piece of data: When Josiah Thompson met with Boswell--again, this was in later November 1966--and took the S and O report out of his briefcase to "show" him, Thompson said that Boswell "turned white as a sheet" (approx., from recollection). Of course, Thompson--who was unaware of the surgery statement--was simply wanting to show the report to Boswell, in the context that it provided powerful evidence against the Single Bullet Theory. During that same trip, Liebeler tried to see Allen Dulles, and there was communication with Dulles' office, but there were scheduling problems, and the meeting couldn't be arranged.
Some of the more "traditional" JFK researchers have tried to dismiss all of this, but I don't think that will ever wash. I was personally a witness to the fact that Liebeler called Arlen Specter, Joe Ball, and Burt Griffen (on 10/24/1966- see Chapter 9 of B.E.); and its also a fact that he was in touch with Ed Guthman, who had been close with RFK and was then a senior editor at the Los Angeles Times. So if RFK didn't know about any of this beforehand (and I don't think he did), he certainly knew about it by the end of November 1966. Moreover, there is the 13 page memo--dated 11/8/1966--that he sent out on 11/16/1966, that (essentially) called for a reopening of the medical part of the WC investigation, with additional sworn testimony to be taken, as necessary. The 13 page memo listed a plethora of problems with the autopsy, and concluded with a full page spent on the Sibert and O'Neill report about "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of skull."
Boswell turned "white as a sheet" when Josiah Thompson pulled out the Sibert and O'Neill report? Is there an earlier source on that?
-
-
After all, it was you and me.
-
13 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:
I don't know what happened to the image, but here it is again. In case you can't read that, it is also on my blog:
https://vincepalamara.com/2020/10/10/from-fbi-agent-frank-oneills-book-a-fox-among-wolves/
Thank you!
-
11 minutes ago, John Kowalski said:
Can you provide the link for his blog.
-
6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
What are you talking about Micah?
Litwin has a blog promoting trans-exclusionary-radical-femenism.
-
Are we allowed to say the fact that Fred Litwin actively campaigns against gender minorities?
-
On 10/4/2020 at 1:20 PM, Joe Bauer said:
I always appreciate in any JFK explanation event presentation the mention of Julia Ann Mercer and her first hand, 11,22,1963 mid-morning Dealey Plaza, stuck in traffic encounter observation story.
Everything about it rings honest and intriguingly important imo.
Reading her same day and 3 day later FBI and Sheriff Department affidavits ( official documents ) you are clearly impressed with her unwavering and detailed account.
She tells a suspiciously incongruous story that begs rational scrutiny considering it's location, activity and timing.
Her personal character integrity seemed to be unimpeachable. She definitely did not seek further attention after her initial same day and three day later interrogations.
And to add even more rational suspicion weight to Ms. Mercer's story, she is on record as telling Jim Garrison that the signature on at least one of the supposed official affidavits is not hers and there was no notary present when she was being questioned.
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.
Dr. David Mantik demolishes Fred Litwin
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Humes said in his WC testimony that he had to do "virtually" no work with a saw to remove the brain. The word "virtually" implies he had to cut some bone. Humes told the ARRB "we had to cut some bone". Floyd Riebe and Tom Robinson claim they saw the pathologists using a saw to cut bone.