Micah Mileto

Did the Warren report expressly tell the reader that the curb mark could not have been made by a direct hit because a direct hit would've taken out too much concrete? Also, the report acknowledges a possibility that the curb mark could've been made by one of the shots that wounded the torsos of Kennedy and Connally - strange that the Warren report feigned ignorance of the official story's need for the SBT (Specter would reportedly later admit to Josiah Thompson that he always thought the SBT was necessary). Again, I have always wondered that if the day comes the SBT is scientifically disproven, the government will just try making a cover story for the masses about Oswald tampering with his ammunition to make one low-velocity 6.5 slug enter Kennedy's back and barely exit the throat, perhaps at Zapruder frame 180, then perhaps followed by a separate Oswald shot into Connally's torso at z223 (2.38888888889 seconds at 18 frames per second).

It would seem that McClelland or another doctor said out loud during the ordeal "a piece of cerebellum just fell onto the cart".

Isn't the red blob on the Zapruder film meant to be the inner surface of the skull flap, not brains?

Mormons are more likely to be hired by the FBI. Officially, this is because Mormons are less likely to have a problematic legal record, but perhaps the real reason is that they have genocide in their hearts.

Where in the FBI report did it give any specific detail indicating that Akin was capable of fabricating information? That report is high on opinion but low on detail.

Wow, just wow. Evidence, please. I don't care what the Mormon Nazis at the FBI think, I want specific information indicating that Akin could've been capable of fabricating information or being delusional, and no such information was provided in that report. If he saw a left temple wound, he could've told others about it pre-1981.

Is this Akin? Did he die in 1986 at the age of 56 shortly after telling the FBI about the forehead wound? https://www.myheritage.com/names/gene_akin

6/28/84 FBI Memorandum, SA Udo H. Specht to SAC, Dallas, re: interviews with Akin (RIF#124-10158-10449)---”On 6/18/84, the writer and SA DOUG DAVIS interviewed an individual who stated he was formerly Dr. GENE COLEMAN AKIN, the senior resident anesthesiologist at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas. AKIN stated that he was on duty at the hospital on 11/22/63 when President KENNEDY was brought in the emergency room. AKIN stated that the FBI interviewed him during the 1963-1964 period concerning any of the observations he made on 11/22/63. AKIN stated that the “historic accident” of being present in the emergency room on 11/22/63 changed his whole life in a negative way. He feels that the governments on both a federal and state level have harassed him since that time. He stated that he quit practicing medicine in 1979 or 1980 and that DEA took his narcotics license away. He has never recouped the money it cost him to practice medicine because of government interference with his own destiny and self-initiative. He has been on welfare since 1980 and feels it is now the government’s obligation to take care of him. He claims that his sister had him committed to Terrell State Hospital and he was incarcerated in that institution from March 9 through May 25, 1984. He stated that it took him that long to convince the doctors that he was not a “nut.” AKIN is in the hospital for heart by-pass surgery on 6/20/84 and he has also been diagnosed as having renal cancer. AKIN also stated that he had his name changed to SOLOMON BEN ISRAEL and he was interviewed in Room 439, St. PAUL’s HOSPITAL, Dallas, Texas. AKIN ranted and raved about government injustice and conspiracies against him and behaved in a general aberrant manner. His mannerism in communicating, in the opinion of the writer, gave him or the information he was trying to relate no credibility whatsoever. The writer attempted to listen to him for over one hour. AKIN made efforts to contact the Dallas news media in order to tell his story, but apparently received very little favorable response. The writer made efforts to get AKIN to tell his story. AKIN kept ranting and raving about items from the right to the left of the political spectrum. AKIN did finally say that when he saw President KENNEDY in the emergency room on 11/22/63, he thought he saw a bullet entrance wound on the President’s forehead. The President was covered with blood in the head area and the back of his head was blown wide open. AKIN feels that his observation as to the possible entrance wound on the President’s forehead is significant and that he did not mention this item when he was interviewed in 1963-1964 because he did not want to be killed by any conspirators. AKIN stated that if this entrance wound was not documented in the Presidential autopsy, then plastic surgery was probably conducted to cover this up. AKIN made available a cassette tape recording of items he recorded himself during the past few days. The tape recording was reviewed by the writer and contained no information whatsoever concerning AKIN’s comments about the assassination of President KENNEDY. [redaction: at least one paragraph] At 1:45 pm, 6/28/84, AKIN telephonically contacted the writer and stated that he checked himself out [of] St. Paul’s hospital to [be] re-evaluated as to what to do about his medical condition. He stated that he was calling from the Dallas County Jail and that he had been arrested on 6/26/84. He was unspecific as to why he was arrested, but he indicated that it was some type of fraud charge and alcohol might have been an issue also. He wanted the writer to get him out of Jail and that it was all the FBI’s fault that his troubles are continuing. AKIN became extremely verbally abusive and the writer terminated the call. [redaction: at least a few sentences; end]” Where does it say any specific thing against his credibility? Sounds like the FBI, like most dirty rotten humans, will just call anything they don't agree with a mental illness. Also, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovCdMKfthXw

A. Dr. Jones never further clarified what he told the ARRB about the left temple. B. Is there any good reason to disregard Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel? I also can't tell if that guy has passed away or not.

I have a few to add to the list. Will post later.

Akin claimed he was coerced. Entertaining the possibility of a temple wound probably also entails entertaining the possibility of a massive cover-up of Parkland witnesses.

Robinson and even allegedly Crenshaw spoke of multiple tiny wounds on the face. This could be from a bullet or from shrapnel entering from the front, or perhaps bullet or skull fragments passing through the facial bones and through the skin. Could it be possible that exiting and flapping fragments of skull bone pierced the face from the outside? Again, Dr. Gene Akin AKA Solomon Ben-Israel and Hugh Huggins are witnesses who have stated directly on record, unambiguously, that they saw a small ENTRANCE wound on the front of Kennedy's head. And I am not aware of any serious reason to doubt Gene Akin AKA SBI. There are also the witnesses who said there was a small spot of blood on the front of the head which looked like it could be mistaken for a wound. And, of course, the witnesses who stated that they saw what could've been one or more small holes, or a spot of bullet metal on the frontal head area caused by shrapnel. You also don't need to believe in alteration to accept the possibility of a small frontal head wound. So why not join the temple wound parade?

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1uvGaBl2_EanXn4OwQrr083_yiLVrNGYK?usp=sharing Could this be one or two holes in the right front of the head on the F8 skull photos, or just a glisten of light?

Could your proposed "tangential 6.5 skull shot" have sent one or more fragments out of the front of the skull? It may depend on the proposed size of the shrapnel exit wound, because larger fragments would have more velocity.

Robinson would later say that he saw more than one small holes in the front of the head. From Harrison Livingstone’s 1992 book High Treason 2: [...p. 284-285, Chapter 14. New Evidence: The 1991 Dallas Conference] There may very well have been a puncture to the left temple, because the mortician told me the head was penetrated in several places by shrapnel,2 which he filled with wax, but the Dallas doctors later strongly retracted the observation of an entry wound in the temple. [...p. 290] Malcolm Kilduff, acting White House press secretary, points to the spot on the autopsy photographs that could be an entry hole, just above the corner of the right eyebrow. Tom Wilson’s computer study of that spot, visible on the Groden Right Superior autopsy photograph, indicates that it is in fact a hole through the skull. One of the morticians, Tom Robinson, told the author how he filled a penetrating hole in the same area with wax. “I didn’t have to do anything more to it,” he said. Robinson thought it was one of a few very small penetrating skull wounds and exits from “shrapnel.” [...p. 579-581, Chapter 28. What Really Happened] On August 17, 1991, just two days after speaking with Joe Hagen, president of Gawler’s Funeral Home, which prepared John Kennedy’s body for his coffin, I interviewed his assistant, Tom Robinson. [...] “The body had been cleaned up before we got it. The face was perfect and undamaged except for a small laceration about a half inch into the forehead, which I covered up.” I asked him if any of the frontal bone or bone behind any part of the face, forehead, or front top of the head underlying the scalp was damaged. “It may have been fractured [and I couldn’t see that], but it was perfectly intact. I don’t think any of it had been removed or replaced before we got it. The face was perfect. It would have fallen in without the frontal bone.” “There was one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it.” “What side was it on?” “I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was on the right side.” In another interview he told me that the skull was penetrated in two or three more places by shrapnel, which he filled with wax. These places were near the eyes.10 There was only one significant hole of any kind in the head beside small puncture wounds, and that was the large defect. He said that it was in the very back of the head and could not be seen with the head on the pillow. The scalp back there was badly mangled and “some of it was missing.” […] His face was perfect and did require work of any kind, and the frontal bone underlying it was intact, but slightly fractured. [...Notes, Chapter 14] 2. Interview with Tom Robinson, October 6, 1991. [...Notes, Chapter 28] 10. Interview of October 6, 1991. On 5/26/1992, Robinson was interviewed by private investigator Joe West. West’s personal notes read: Wounds: • large gaping hole in back of head. Patched by stretching piece of rubber over it. Thinks skull full of Plaster of Paris. • smaller wound in right temple. Crescent shape, flapped down (3") • (approx 2) Small shrapnel wounds in face. Packed with wax. (Link 1 [link 2] [link 3, Journal News, 12/28/2013]) Crescent shaped what? Scalp or skull? Either one doesn’t sound like it could be the result of an ordinary round bullet entrance. Joe West is not alive now to confirm what he meant by the double prime " symbol. 3 centimeters? 3 inches? In Robinson’s 1/12/1977 statement, he said the temple wound he saw was "Very small, a quarter of an inch" (ARRB MD 63 [text] [audio]). From a report on Robinson’s 6/21/1996 interview by the Assassination Records Review Board: -Visible damage to skull caused by bullet or bullets (as opposed to damage caused by pathologists): Robinson described 3 locations of wounds: -he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and slight discoloration began to occur (and executed a drawing of three slits, or holes, in the right cheek of the President on a photocopy of a frontal photograph of the President); -he described a “blow-out” which consisted of a flap of skin in the right temple of the President’s head, which he believed to be an exit wound based on conversations he heard in the morgue amongst the pathologists (and executed two drawings of this right temporal defect on both a photocopy of a right lateral photograph of the President, and on a right lateral anatomy diagram of the human skull); -he described a large, open head wound in the back of the President’s head, centrally located right between the ears, where the bone was gone, as well as some scalp. He related his opinion that this wound in the back of the President’s head was an entry wound occuring from a bullet fired from behind, based on conversations he heard in the morgue among the pathologists. (Robinson executed two drawings of the hole in the back of the President’s head, one on an anatomy drawing of the posterior skull, and one on an anatomy drawing of the lateral skull. On the annotated lateral skull drawing, the wound in the rear of the head is much larger than the wound in the right temple.) […] Fox Autopsy Photographs: After completing his four drawings of head wounds and describing those wounds, ARRB staff showed Mr. Robinson a set of what is alleged to be the Fox autopsy photographs to see whether they were consistent with what he remembered seeing in the morgue at Bethesda. His comments follow, related to various Fox photos: -Right Superior Profile (corresponds to B & W #s 5 and 6): He does not see the small shrapnel holes he noted in the right cheek, but he assumes this is because of the photo’s poor quality. -Back of Head (corresponds to B & W #s 15 and 16): Robinson said: “You see, this is the flap of skin, the blow-out in the right temple that I told you about, and which I drew in my drawing.” When asked by ARRB where the hole in the back of the head was in relation to this photograph, Robinson responded by placing his fingers in a circle just above the white spot in the hairline in the photograph, and said “The hole was right here, where I said it was in my drawing, but it just doesn’t show up in this photo.” (ARRB MD 180) Diagram marked by Robinson: https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md88.pdf Robinson pointed to the large gaping area on the other side of a bone flap on the autopsy photos as the wound he was describing. But, he did draw a comparatively smaller triangular mark on the diagram. Robinson’s earlier statements also indicate a SMALL-sized wound: "a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small, it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up", "Very small, a quarter of an inch", "he didn't have to close it. If anything I just would have probably put a little wax on it" (ARRB MD 63, 1/12/1977 HSCA interview [text] [audio]), "a small laceration", "one very small hole in the temple area, in the hairline. I used wax in it, and that is all that I had to do. I just put a little wax in it" (Livingstone, High Treason 2, 1992, p. 284-285, 578-581).

From Kilduff's 3/15/1976 oral history for the JFK Library “the left side of his head was a bloody mass” Michigan City News-Dispatch, 10/26/1977, Kilduff: “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat” On 4/17/1991, Malcolm Kilduff talked to Harrison Livingstone. When Livingstone said “As you know, the face was not damaged at all. No witness saw any damage to the head past the midline of the skull, forward of the right ear”, Kilduff confusingly replied “Forward of the right ear? No! Forward of the left ear, they did. I did. The bullet came in on the right side and exited the left side. What splatter there was”. Kilduff may have meant “left” to mean the anatomical right, as he also said “...the left part of his forehead looked like—when I got over to the car—looked like two pounds of ground beef”, “The blow-out was in the left front. The Zapruder film shows that. Frames 313, 314, 315” (High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, 1992, p. 447, Chapter 21. The Presidential Party, Malcolm Kilduff). Gary Mack posted a comment to alt.assassination.jfk on 12/29/1999, regarding the Parkland press conference of 11/22/1963 (Link): The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter, Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry. A post by Gary Mack on 1/3/2000 reads (Link): Kilduff does, in fact, credit Burkley for the information, according to the soundtrack of the film. On his recent visit to Dallas, Kilduff told me he got his information from Perry. I suspect his conversation was with Burkley, the president's physician, as it would have been more appropriate than talking to Perry, a stranger. Still, he could have spoken with both. Gary Mack posted a comment to alt.assassination.jfk on 12/29/1999, regarding the Parkland press conference of 11/22/1963 (Link): The soundtrack reveals that Kilduff said only, "It was a simple matter, Tom (Wicker), of a bullet right through the head." He did not indicate whether it went in or came out at that location. Kilduff confirmed that to me just last month and said his information came from Dr. Perry. A post by Gary Mack on 1/3/2000 reads (Link): Kilduff does, in fact, credit Burkley for the information, according to the soundtrack of the film. On his recent visit to Dallas, Kilduff told me he got his information from Perry. I suspect his conversation was with Burkley, the president's physician, as it would have been more appropriate than talking to Perry, a stranger. Still, he could have spoken with both. For some, this information may rekindle the suspicion that the Associated Press was telling the truth when it reported “...Perry said the entrance wound was in the front of the head” (Associated Press, United Press International and Dow Jones teletype reports of the Kennedy assassination, Sheet 10; Tri-City Herald, 11/22/1963, Bullet Entered Front Of Head; Oakland Tribune, 11/22/1963, Front Of Head; Surgeon Describes The Wound; Lancaster New Era, 11/22/1963, Doctors Took Prompt Action; The Hammond Times, 11/22/1963, Doctors Tell Of Trying To Save J.F.K.; Albuquerque Tribune, 11/22/1963, Treatment Described [link 2]; Associated Press, Charlotte News, 11/22/1963, President Kennedy Slain; Assassin Eludes Dragnet; AP, Telegraph-Herald, 11/22/1963, Physician Says Bullet Entered Front of Head; Newsday, 11/22/1963, Kennedy Slain: Shot by Dallas Assassin; Johnson Is New President; Great Falls Tribune, 11/23/1963, President’s Wound in Head, Neck; Hartford Courant, 11/23/1963, Surgeon Tells Of Efforts to Save President). As it is written on your website, patspeer.com: [...Chapter 18c: Reason to Doubt, By Way of Illustration] [...] We should consider, as well, Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." (Note: I can't remember where I got this quote from Mack...via an article, a taped interview, or a personal email. If you know the answer, please remind me. As it stands, I've tracked down a 12-29-99 post from Mack on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup in which he claims Kilduff told him but a month before that he didn't intend to specify the wound by the temple as an entrance or an exit in the 11-22-63 press conference, and that he was merely pointing out the location of the wound.) Also, Crenshaw did not exactly say that he saw a small head wound. He is on the record saying that he thought the large head wound was caused by a tangential wound, and that there was only a spot of blood on his left temple that might've looked like a wound at a glance. Crenshaw died in 2001, however in 2013 his former co-writer Jens Hansen (who was implicated in not only taking unacceptable creative liberties with Crenshaw's original story, but also losing a 11/23/1963 journal and a 1990 manuscript that Crenshaw claimed he made but didn't copy), says in the afterword of the 50th anniversary reskin, title changed from "JFK: Conspiracy of Silence" to "JFK Has Been Shot": Dr. Crenshaw also saw three small wounds on the right side of the president’s face, but the horrendous brain damage, by comparison, caused these minor injuries to be ignored. When President Kennedy was embalmed, Thomas Evan Robinson, the mortician, confirmed a small wound in the temple and two other small wounds in the face. It is believed by some researchers that one of the bullets shot at the president struck the ground in front or to the side of the limousine, causing chipped cement fragments to act as shrapnel and hit the right side of President Kennedy’s face. These wounds were packed with wax.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11933#relPageId=18 Is there a higher quality version of the photo from this unpublished article? This is a low-quality scan found in the files of the FBI, from an unpublished and undated draft of an article meant to be published in Liberty magazine, before it went out of business following the publication of it's last issue dated 7/15/1964. Both the 7/17/1964 issue and the unpublished article focus on photographer Norman Similas, a witness who was implied by Vincent Bugliosi to have lied about seeing LBJ attend a convention for the carbonated soda industry, because Johnson "wasn't even in town that day". But we know that Johnson attended this convention on 11/19/1963, and newspaper reports state that he gave a speech where said that sodapop was good for the economy and needed to be taxed less (Coca-Cola, anyone?). In the two articles from Liberty Magazine on Similas, Similas claims that while he was photographing LBJ, Johnson jokingly turned to him, put his hand partway in his coat and said "should I pose like Napolean?". This might be an important photo to find because, if we are to use the logic that LBJ had foreknowledge of the assassination, one would probably need to believe that he was thinking about it at that very moment. Link to part 1: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11933#relPageId=12

This beef goes back to when King was featured in the media to claim that he believed in a lone gunman after studying the subject very well.

As many readers have pointed out, he doesn't know enough about researching real-life events, places, and things, let alone a time period. King probably doesn't/didn't have enough time of care to finely detail such things. Why does one of the child characters of IT have the catchphrase "can't be careful on a skateboard" despite that portion of the book taking place in the 1950's, when skateboarding was only becoming popularized in the 70's?

Who is this Kirkpatrick lady? Were you quoting her as a joke to summarize the kind of thing Kissinger would say?

Human rights are a matter of budget. A poor people's revolution is not likely to have much of a budget for extra human rights.

“Vero Beach Press-Journal”, 11/14/93: article by Craig Colgan---As Gary Aguilar has reported, “Craig Colgan reported Stringer’s surprise when he heard, and positively identified, his own tape-recorded voice making the above statements to Lifton in 1972. He insisted in the interview with Colgan that he did not recall his ever claiming that the wound was in the rear. [?] The wound he recalled was to the right side of the head [this is the identical about-face Stringer did with Livingstone after the first interview!]. ABC’s “Prime Time Live” associate producer, Jacqueline Hall-Kallas, sent a film crew to interview Stringer for a 1988 San Francisco KRON-TV interview [“JFK: An Unsolved Murder”, 11/18/88, with Sylvia Chase, later of “20/20” fame] after Stringer, in a pre-filming interview told Hall-Kallas that the wound was as he described it to Lifton. Colgan reported, “When the camera crew arrived, Stringer’s story had changed [another about-face]”, said Stanhope Gould, a producer who also is currently at ABC and who conducted the 1988 on-camera interview with Stringer…”we wouldn’t have sent a camera crew all the way across the country on our budget if we thought he would reverse himself”, Gould said…”(In the telephone pre-interview) he corroborated what he told David Lifton, that the wounds were not as the official version said they were,” Hall-Kallas said.”;

Wasn't there a story about Stringer being interviewed, and saying the hold was in the back of the head, but only when the cameras started filming him did he instantly change to saying it was on the top of the head?

What? You must be aware that Ramsey Clark and John Stringer admitted that they were pressured into signing that inventory, because of the lack of any photographs of the interior chest.

A 12/1/1971 interview of Dr. McClelland by Harold Weisberg was included in Weisberg’s 1975 book Post Mortem (Link): [...Epilogue, p. 376-377] From Carrico’s office in Room 208, I went to the sixth floor, where Drs. Robert N. McClelland and Perry have offices opposite each other. McClelland was in, Perry was then not. McClelland was pleasant, greeting me cordially. I asked him about his contemporaneous statement, that “the cause of death” was “a gunshot wound of the left temple” (R527) He does remember it and began an apology by saying “it was a total mistake on my part”. His explanation is that “Ginger”, Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, called the spot to his attention. McClelland seemed genuinely disturbed about this. He was bitter that the New Orleans assistant district attorneys had asked him about it and self-satisfied with how he talked them out of calling him as a witness – by telling them he would swear it had been a “total mistake”. I asked him why he never corrected this alleged mistake, especially when he was deposed and Specter, having avoided it with obvious care, asked him instead if there was anything he had said that he wanted to change or anything he wanted to add (6H39). McClelland had no answer. So I asked him how he know it was, in fact, a “total mistake”. He then shifted to this position: “I don’t know that it wasn’t and I don’t know that it was”. We both realized this was a far cry from his opening, “it was a total mistake,” for almost immediately, and without vigorous questioning, he was admitting openly and without leading questions that it might not have been any mistake. A bit embarrassed, he formulated still another position, “I presume it was a wrong assumption.” He was anxious to complain about Garrison and his assistants, and I listened to a long, bitter and irrelevant diatribe, which seemed to satisfy him. When he ran down, I asked how he would or could now account for such an error, if error it was. He then conjectured it was a spot of splattered blood. Perhaps an experienced surgeon and professor of surgery cannot tell the difference between a bullet hole of entrance to which he attributed the crime of the century and a spot of blood. I found it not easy to believe. So I asked him how he came to realize that perhaps he was in error. That it turns out, was not anything he had seen or of which he had personal knowledge, but the autopsy report taken around and shown by the federal agents! It was not in the autopsy report so it was not true, regardless of his own professional observation and opinion. There was another obvious question and I asked it: Had he, Jenkins, or anyone else wiped this alleged spot to see if it was no more than a spot of blood or to see if it was a bullet hole when all knew there would be an inquest which would have to establish the cause of death? His answer was simple, direct and unequivocal: “No.” I reminded him that Jenkins also had testified to the existence of this left-temple wound. McClelland had no explanation. Jenkins was not available. His second reference to this under oath was remarkably detailed and precise in locating the alleged wound in the left temple (6H51). This followed immediately upon an off-the-record “discussion” with Specter, the content of which Specter described as “on a couple of matters which I am now going to put on the record” (6H50). With regard to Jenkins’ professional belief and observation of the carefully described and oriented left-temple wound, Jenkins testified, “you have answered that for me”. This is one way of conducting an “investigation” with the lawyer telling the expert witness what to say and believe. Thus it is clear, regardless of whether the doctors’ observations were correct or in error, on what could have been a vital element of the evidence, the only doctors who have personal knowledge have no basis for denying their immediate, competent, professional and unsolicited observation, that there had been a left-temple wound of entrance and that it was the likely cause of death. Instead, they were told by Specter and federal agents what to say and believe and what not to say or believe.