Micah Mileto

In all of Robinson's other statements, he said that he didn't remember any wound in the back.

Come now, the back wound photos show a much clearer view of the lower back of the head than that.

Any way we could at least get a table of contents?

David’s story of the autopsy film may have some corroboration from Bill Pitzer’s widow, Joyce Pitzer. From The Fourth Decade newsletter, Volume 2, Number 4, p. 16, Bits and Pieces: A Green Beret on the Periphery of the JFK Assassination by Daniel Marvin: Late in the afternoon, on Saturday, 29 October 1966 Lieutenant Commander William Pitzer was found dead in his office at the Bethesda Naval Hospital where the autopsy on President Kennedy had been performed three years earlier. With a gunshot wound to the right temple, Dr. Pitzer's death was officially ruled a suicide, but family and friends found this verdict impossible to accept, not least of all because his widow knew better. In January 1995 Mrs. Joyce B. Pitzer told me unequivocally that she knew her husband "had parts of the autopsy that they wanted destroyed." She was speaking of our government wanting the autopsy photos he'd taken of JFK on 22 November 1963 destroyed. She told me that her husband "refused to do this." Instead of the United States Navy assisting Mrs. Pitzer to get to the bottom of her husband's violent death, they ruled it suicide. She knew different, but the Navy refused her access to the autopsy of her husband. Instead, she told me, "After his death, four of the Navy Intelligence were here at the house. They told me not to talk." She clarified that, saying, "and for 25 years I did not really discuss this." Even after a quarter of a century had passed, Mrs. Pitzer told me of how "Several of the Captains and one of the Admirals told me when Livingstone was writing the book [High Treason 2] to stay out of it."

I was wondering - by now, would would be the condition of JFK's embalmed tissues? Would they be jerky, or just bones and dust? I know they don't make them last like they did in Ancient Egypt. There WILL be an exhumation - one year, one decade, one century.

Not only that, but Jenkins also told Livingstone that the spinal cord was removed during the autopsy. Jenkin's claim was denied by Dr. Boswell, as well as Dr. Robert Karnei, another autopsy witness. Dr. Humes refused to comment. As summarized in Livingstone's 1992 book High Treason 2: [Chapter 6. The Autopsy: Some Conflicts in the Evidence] [...] Spinal Cord Jenkins describes removing the spinal cord with a Stryker saw, but Dr. Karnei does not remember it having been removed. When I tried to ask Dr. Humes if it had been removed, he hung up on me.15 Dr. Boswell told me that the cord was not removed.16 The question of removal and examination of the spinal cord is important because this would tell us if the tuberculosis Kennedy had been exposed to as a child had been reactivated by the steroids he was being given, and only examination of the tissues of the spinal cord would tell this. Normally during an autopsy the spinal cord is removed and its condition is reported. Livingstone interviewed Dr. Karnei on 8/27/1991, Dr. Humes on 9/5/1991, and Dr. Boswell 8/7/1991. [...] [Chapter 7. Dr. Robert Frederick Karnei] [...] "Nobody got a look at the spine area?" "Not that I remember. I don't remember anybody going into the spinal area to take a look there." [...] "In the end, don't you think they performed a complete and good autopsy?" "I think it was as complete as they were allowed to do. I mean, normally they would have gone into the spinal column and taken the spinal cord and all that sort of thing. And they were not allowed to do that. And there was no way they could have looked at the spinal column there to see if there was any disease in the spinal column." "They didn't remove the spinal column?" "No. No. Not that I can remember. I am almost sure they did not touch the spinal column. [...] [...] "So the spinal cord was not removed, so there was no opportunity to take tissue samples from it or study whether or not he might have actually had TB of the spine?" "No, I don't remember the spinal column ever being touched." [...] [Chapter 11. James Curtis Jenkins] [...] Later the spinal cord was removed-a Stryker saw cut both sides of the vertebral column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord.12 Both Dr. Boswell,13 and Dr. Robert Karnei, who was present in the autopsy room, deny that the spinal cord was removed. Once again it sounds as though we are talking about two different autopsies. Part of the problem of trying to solve a case with so much conflicting evidence is the way people's minds play tricks on them. A lot of the witnesses did not see certain things because they were momentarily out of the room or otherwise occupied, so they will compensate by making certain assumptions in their mind which then become fact. If they think that Robert Kennedy was limiting the autopsy and they did not see the spinal cord removed, for instance, then they may state that the spinal cord was not removed because Robert did not want it done. It is very common under stress for people's minds to imagine that they saw something they did not or to block out the memory of certain events. Jackie K as climbing on the trunk or Nelly Connally going up a flight of stairs. I am not suggesting that that is what happened here, and that the spinal cord was in fact removed. I don't know at this point. The cord is not properly mentioned in the autopsy report, wheras normally it would be. From Livingstone's 1993 book Killing The Truth: Deceit and Deception in the JFK Case: [Appendix J, Encyclopedia of Medical Events And Witness Testimony by Harrison E. Livingstone and Katlee Link Fitzgerald] [...] SPINAL CORD [...] Doctor Robert Karnei: The spinal cord was not removed. He was quite strong about this. (Aug. 27, 1991) Jim Jenkins: said that later the spinal cord was removed separately-use of Stryker saw but both sides of the vertical column. Jenkins saw Dr. Boswell remove the spinal cord (a: June 6, 1991) Jenkins thinks the brain stem was severed before it arrived at the autopsy because when they removed it from the head, the spinal cord did not come with it. He also said during the same interview that he did not recall removing the spinal cord and that he would have removed it (a: May 29, 1991) However, approximately 90% of the time the spinal cord will separate from the brain when the brain is removed.

https://old.reddit.com/r/JFKsubmissions/comments/drun3m/discussing_jfks_torso_wounds_part_3_preautopsy/ There are some serious problems with Bennett's story. The pictures taken in Dealey Plaza show that he was about 50 feet away from the Presidential Limousine when the shooting started. As researcher David Lifton asked, "Could a person see a bullet strike dark clothing at about fifty feet?". If Bennett was not telling the truth, this could possibly reveal an attempt to manufacture witness evidence (Lifton, Best Evidence: Disguise and Deception in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, 1980, Part III. A Search For New Evidence, Chapter 11. The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda). Even lone-gunman author David Von Pein said in a 2018 online discussion "That type of vision is reserved for a guy named Superman. Anyway, do you think Bennett had a tape measure with him when he estimated where the bullet entered the President's back?". Two photographs taken in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting show Bennett's head turned sharply to the right, not turned towards the direction of Kennedy (PatSpeer.com, A New Perspective on the Kennedy Assassination by Pat Speer, Chapter 5b: Primary Pieces, Isolating Bennett). First, there is Willis photo #5, synchronous with frame 202 of the Zapruder Film (Richard E. Sprague, 10/15/1967; Don Olson and Ralph F. Turner, October 1971; HSCA Vol. 6, p. 121). Second, there is Altgens photo #6, synchronous with z255 (WC, p. 255; WC Vol. 5, p. 138; HSCA Vol. 6, p. 318). https://i.imgur.com/6lRULzv.jpg - Willis photo #5, with President Kennedy and Agent Bennett circled. Also notice how Kennedy's back is enveloped in dark shadows, making it even more doubtful that Bennett saw what he claimed. https://i.imgur.com/v4KWioX.jpg - Altgens photo #6. Kennedy's hands are raised towards his neck, while Bennett's head is turned as it is in the Willis photo. The Zapruder Film shows Kennedy starting to raise his arms by the z220's. This body language is officially explained by one bullet entering the back and exiting the throat. If Bennett's head remained turned between the time of the Willis and Altgens photographs, then it is doubtful that he could've seen the bullet hole punch through the back of Kennedy's coat. The Zapruder Film reportedly runs at 18.3 frames per second (WC, p. 97; WC Vol. 5, p. 135; WC Vol. 5, p. 138), so there was about a 3-second span between the Willis and Altgens photos. On the other hand, if Bennett's statements were true and honest, they still bring the official story into question. Anybody proposing a lone gunman must explain what happened to the first shot fired: either it missed, or it successfully entered Kennedy's back (Warren Report, Chapter 3: The Shots from the Texas School Book Depository, Number of Shots). Bennett's statements could only be reconciled with the official version by proposing the first shot missed. This limits the possibilities for a lone gunman scenario to be argued. There is another possibility to consider: what if Bennett saw the back shot AFTER Kennedy raised his hands towards his neck? If the back wound was created after the throat wound, this would nullify the official story.

By all accounts from Parkland, the tubes were not left in Kennedy's body before placing it in the casket. A couple of nurses described pulling the tubes out after Kennedy was declared lost.

Also the mole under Marguerite's eye. I think Sandy suggested the old Marguerite "impersonator" painted a fake mole under her eye.

A small contention with Pat Speer's treatment of the temple wound problem: Speer points out on his website that Diana Bowron told Harrison Livingstone in 1993 "When we prepared the body, I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this, I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head". But, as Audrey Bell said at the 4/6/1991 conference in Dallas, "It would've been cleaned up partially. However, you didn't do too much cleaning up because medical examiner- you couldn't wash away evidence. So, medical examiner never liked to have a body totally cleaned up before they got it. You sent everything intact with all IV tubes, chest tubes, any drains, anything that's been attached, go intact".

Cliff is a more likely assassin than Oswald. Can anybody here truly disagree?

Somebody needs to scan Beyond the Fence Line and upload it for free. In general, JFK Lancer really does ask a chunky price for all of their digital goods. $100 per conference! That's like $3000 for the CD-roms of every conference they've done! By now all of the information should be out in the open. They're committing the same crime they accuse the government of doing by not releasing all of their information!

They made Oswald HOT 😍

Has anybody made a list of unidentified figures photographed on the grassy knoll (confirmed e.g. black dog man, not unconfirmed like badge man)?

None of this pertains to the EOP wound. Do you suspect here was no EOP wound? We'll never know until the body is dug up.

What's so wrong about thinking the throat wound could be an exit for a bullet or fragment hitting the EOP?

O'Connor recalls that Jenkins or someone else told him that the doctors had "...found a fragment of a bullet lodged in the intercostal muscle on the right rear side.." of the President's body. https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md64.pdf

"Carefully drawn" Come on it's like a couple of millimeters apart, and people's eyes sag with age.

Yeah, at the very least, we know from the 11/30/1963 Bryce Miller newspaper article that Dr. Crenshaw was present at the trauma ward in Parkland hospital, let alone his mentions in the WC testimonies. Also the HSCA tried interviewing Crenshaw in the late 70's, but they didn't like what he had to say so they didn't even bother making a public report on the interview. And at least a couple witnesses corroborated Crenshaw in saying that LBJ himself called Parkland hospital.

https://media.tenor.com/images/f28d6c92bba523c3f4fc0084c1290b47/tenor.gif

Not all moles were airbrushed out of all photos. Like for example there was that group photo where Marguerite has the mark under her eye. The same mark is in photos spread across her whole lifespan.

mole under eye

Airbrushing was common for photo portraits back then, because maybe back then "moles" were seen "defects" rather than beauty marks.

Yea, I edited the mistake. Photos of Marguerite through all her life show a mole under her eye. I don't see how that fits with the theory that the later photos are of an impersonator.

Has any Harvey-And-Lee theorist tried to explain the mole under Marguerite Oswald's eye in all of her photos?