Micah Mileto

Does he have a video of the Pittsburgh conference with the autopsy witnesses?

Doesn't it arguably show the exit point 1 1/2 inches or more below the throat point? It shows the line moving well through the tieknot, not just above it. And the appearence of the tie knot is based on the Zapruder film.

Sorry I couldn't have The Case For An altered Throat Wound out by the anniversary. The more time the better it will be. My first write-up took 2 years also. so much xxxxing trivia to cram into every page that may or may not be considered "suspicious" - for the sake of completeness I must include and acknowledge every theory and every suspicion even if I don't agree with it.

The bullet could've gone in any number of directions after it would've Connally's fifth rib. Still a stretch in the model.

Holy xxxx, Illuminati scientifically confirmed in 2 days? We'll see.

Is facial recognition as useful as they want you to think, or is it bunk?

The meathead himself from All In The Family has a JFK conspiracy podcast now? Wow.

One of the primary pieces of evidence for an altered throat wound is Lifton’s reported 1966 interviews with Parkland doctors, where they were each asked to recall the length of the tracheostomy incision. Drs. Charles Carrico, Charles Baxter, Marion Jenkins, and Gene Akin were reportedly interviewed on 1/8/1966, Robert McClelland on 11/9/1966, Ronald Jones on 11/10/1966, and Paul Peters on 11/12/1966. It reads in Best Evidence, starting with Carrico (Link): […Part III. A Search for New Evidence, Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda] On November 8, 1966, I telephoned him, introducing myself as a UCLA graduate student attending a legal seminar held by "Professor Wesley Liebeler, who was on the Warren Commission." I told him I was doing a paper on the tracheotomy operation. "Dr. Perry testified that he made this incision in the neck... you were there when this happened, correct?" "Right." "Could you tell me approximately the length of the tracheotomy incision that was made?" "Gee. It's been a while. Probably-it would just be a guess-between two and three centimeters, which is close to an inch." "Between two and three centimeters?" "Yes." I asked: "Do you think the incision that Dr. Perry made might have been, let's say, four centimeters?" Replied Carrico: "Oh, I really don't know. But it, that would probably be the upper limit. I doubt if it was that large." As with Perry, the confident tone of Dr. Carrico carried the message that he did not need more than an inch to insert the tracheotomy tube. The next doctor was Charles Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy. I posed the question: LIFTON: Now, about what was the length of the incision? BAXTER: Oh, it's roughly an inch and a half. LIFTON: ...you could see the incision before they placed the tracheotomy tube into the incision? BAXTER: Oh, yes. Yes. LIFTON: So at that time you remember it as being an inch and a half [3.8cm]? BAXTER: Yeah, roughly.1 The assassination, I commented, was three years before. How sure was he of the details? "It's pretty vivid," replied Baxter, adding: "It's such a common operation that it's just standard. I think he probably had the most standard of standard operations . .. you do exactly what you're trained to do . . . if it wasn't standard, I don't know what it would have been." Besides asking each doctor about the incision length, I also sought his reaction to an 8cm (3.2in) incision. I asked Jenkins: "Do you think the incision could have been three and a quarter inches?" "No, I don't think so," he replied.2 Dr. Carrico responded: "Jiminy Christmas. How big is eight centimeters?" "Three and a quarter inches," I replied (actually it is 3.2 inches). Replied Carrico: "It would be certainly the exception. It would have to be an unusual circumstance."3 Carrico asked me if the autopsy report gave the incision length, but I dodged the question. I asked Baxter if he ever made tracheotomy incisions that were three inches long: "No, we seldom do. You don't need that much."4 Dr. Peters told me of his most vivid recollection. The incision had been made when he walked into the room, and Dr. Perry had one, possibly two, fingers in it. Quantifying his recollection of length was difficult. Dr. Peters estimated: "With two fingers, there's about, well, an inch and three quarters . . . at most, it was two inches."5 In the course of my inquiries about length, I developed some contrary data, and evidence that doctors at Parkland were discussing my calls. The problem first arose with McClelland. I had trouble reaching him, and had to leave my name. When I did reach him, I had the feeling he was anticipating what I was going to ask. When I came to the question of incision length, his reply agreed exactly with Dr. Humes' testimony: "In centimeters, that would be something like eight centimeters, seven or eight centimeters."6 I asked McClelland whether he thought that was the usual length of a tracheotomy. McClelland, a professor of surgery at Parkland Memorial Hospital, replied: "That's about the usual length, uh huh."7 McClelland then admitted he had heard about Liebeler and his course. Curious to see just how far McClelland would go to allay my suspicions, I asked: "Would you say that if eight [centimeters] is the normal size, would you say they sometimes run up to, let's say, ten to twelve centimeters?" (Twelve centimeters is 4.8 inches.) "Oh, they might. They might," replied Professor McClelland. "You just make whatever's necessary to get into the neck. And it's conceivable that in certain people with rather short stocky necks, that you might have to make an incision that large a size."8 Try as I might, I found it difficult to imagine having to make a tracheotomy incision nearly five inches long to get into someone's neck. I concluded that Dr. McClelland, whose statements about the throat wound being an entry had received such widespread publicity, did not wish to become further embroiled in the assassination controversy. Dr. Jones was the only other doctor who gave me an answer that agreed with Humes' testimony: "Probably two and a half or three inches, somewhere along in there. . . "9 He also told me that Dr. McClelland had told him I had called and asked about the length of the incision. During these interviews, another criterion for estimating the incision length arose. Dr. Carrico explained that a tracheotomy tube had a flange—a piece of material perpendicular to the tube, that permits the tube to "sit" on the patient's neck. To keep the tube in place, straps from the flange are often tied around the neck. Carrico suggested that I determine what kind of tracheotomy tube was used and measure the flange. If the incision didn't extend beyond the flange, that would provide at least an upper limit. Dr. Carrico said he had no recollection of whether this particular incision extended beyond the flanges, but that normally it didn't. I decided to ask this question of the remaining doctors on my list. Dr. Baxter said he didn't think the incision could be seen beyond the flange, whose width he estimated at 1 1/4 inches, at most."10 Jenkins didn't know.11 McClelland said the incision did extend from the flange.12 Jones, who had talked with McClelland, said the same thing.13 Dr. Akin, who had given me a 2 1/2-inch incision estimate, was nevertheless emphatic that the incision would not show beyond the flange. "Tracheotomy tubes are far too wide for an incision to be showing beyond that, unless an unreasonably large incision has been made."14 What, then, was the flange size on the tracheotomy tube used on President Kennedy? The tube was not saved, but Dr. Baxter told me it was definitely a plastic one, and it was either a number seven, eight, or nine. I checked a medical catalog and found the maximum width was 4cm. * My flange-length research corroborated the estimates I received from Drs. Perry and Carrico that the tracheotomy incision was "2-3cm" long. [...] * In 1973, Parkland Memorial Hospital was renovating the emergency room area, and offered to sell the National Archives implements used in the emergency room—not the implements used on November 22, 1963. One item provided was a plastic tracheotomy tube. At my request, the Archivist measured the flange length. It was 1 1/4 inches long (1 1/4 inches is 3.1 centimeters). [...] Dr. McClelland goaded me into asking the question with his talk of a 7-8cm incision as being “usual.” I asked him about the edges: LIFTON: . . . Could you tell me, if you were going to describe the edges of the incision, do you have any idea . . . were they smooth edges? Was it a smooth incision? MCCLELLAND: Well ... as I say, when I got there, the incision had been made; and according to Dr. Perry's statement to me as I walked in the room, the first thing he said to me was that there was a wound in the neck, through which he had made the incision. Just as an extension of this wound . . . So I actually did not see the edges of the tracheotomy where it had extended it. And it was smooth, uh, since it was made, of course, with a knife [emphasis added].17 A few days later, I talked with Dr. Peters: LIFTON: In what words would you best describe the edges of that incision? PETERS: Oh, I guess "sharp." LIFTON: Sharp? PETERS: Yeah. LIFTON: In other words, because it was made with a knife by a surgeon? PETERS: That's right. It was a fairly neat incision, pretty close to the midline.18 Dr. Jones used the same word: “sharp.”19

I need more context to the McClelland statement about Perry being intimidated. Did he say that Perry said that, or that somebody else said Perry said that?

Can you update your website to have an all-encompassing essay about the T3 back wound and the experimental evidence against clothing bunching? Your website as it exists today is rather short. I know this video tried talking about it and also tried showing a history of experimental evidence: https://youtu.be/bmSYwBAfzZw?feature=shared We also had Boswell telling the Baltimore Sun that he thought he might've written down somewhere which vertibre the back wound was next to.

If so, I hope it has the clip of McClelland/Miller suggesting Perry was intimidated. Edit: The trailer shows it!

Gochenaur did not mention in this interview that Moore allegedly showed him a JFK autopsy photograph - he said this on Black Op Radio and Destiny Betrayed.

I'm still here waiting for The Parkland Doctors - 8 years late!

Beginning in 1970, James Gochenaur exchanged letters with researcher Harold Weisberg (Archive.org, Weisberg Collection on the JFK Assassination, Gochenauer James; Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James). In a letter to dated 5/10/1971, Gochenaur wrote of Elmer Moore showing him his personal briefcase of pictures and documents on the assassination, which included “Rough handwritten notes on interviews” with, among others, Dr. Perry and Dr. Humes. Humes’ name has an asterisk after it, noted as “means he wouldn't let me read them” Gochenaur wrote of Moore meeting Perry “A. No date on notes: (Moore said it was the 28th or 29th of Nov.) B. Moore brought with him Humes report. C. Moore told me several times he did not "twist Perry's arm", which leads me to believe he might have. D. Perry said he did not see a back wound. E. Perry did not observe a hole near the top, front of right ear. F ) Moore drew "rough renderings" of discription of head wounds”, then on the letter is a drawing of a right-profile view of a head, and among other labels, is one pointing above the eye and reading “"wound" near left eye. Right eye swollen”. Below the drawing it reads “Moore showed Perry drawings and "other visual aids" the back wound from Humes work. Moore wrote up a long memo to the Commission. The basic summary of which was: 1. The wound can not indicate conclusively the angles of the shots. 2. The direction of the shots are above and behind. 3. The photos of wounds likewise can not conclusively give angles - (he left out direction). according to Moore, Warren told him that its best just not to talk conspiracy: we just don't have anything”... “Moore doesn't know, of course, i'm writing to you. His motives for letting me peek into his horror chest is unknown. I sense a guilt thing"”. (Harold Weisberg Archive, jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/G Disk/Gochenauer James/Item 12 [link 2]). Has Gochenaur been asked about this in more recent times?

James Gochenaur speaks at 36:18 into part 1. At no point does he mention the part where Elmer Moore brandished a gun.

https://capa-us.org/the-last-witnesses-revealing-the-truth/

It depends on your operating system, browser, or IP address. I guess the Hood college of Maryland wants to spy on their students? Or maybe it's some kind of way to subvert hacking?

A microscope would be necessary.

I think it goes without saying that Development Hell has created a Frankenstein monetser which bears no resemblance to it's original form. I smell a hot mess incoming, just like Charlie Sheen's 9/11 movie.

Hope it isn't as much of a failure as the film Nine-Eleven film with Charlie Sheen.

https://deadline.com/2023/10/barry-levinson-assassination-al-pacino-1235576261/

Did Google Drive flush the Malcolm Blunt archives, or did they just change the interface to make it impossible to navigate back through folders? Or was the change a choice of the user? Where can I browse through the Blunt archives?

Yes, this is the researcher Mark Crouch who died in 2016 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/251198826/