Micah Mileto

"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?

The "psychoanalysis" reminds me of the Penn and Teller episode on conspiracy theories. Can't believe money was spent producing such garbage. I bet some hard answers could be resolved for less than the amount of money spent on those awful TV specials.

More exclusive information hidden in the depths of forum discussion! Glad I could archive those quotes before they become lost!

Is there any actual evidence for this bit of psychoanalysis? Or is it a lie that people just repeat to feel superior? I'm betting on the later, because most of psychology is a just harmful pseudoscience made up by idiots.

Is this a teaser for the long-awaited Rapsittie Street Kids: A Bunny's Tale?

I don't think the EOP information was known to anybody in the media then, probably a coincidence.

At this point, why not? Has anybody done an essay long enough to encapsulate all possible knowledge and theories regarding the gurney andgurney bullet?

The core columns held up 60% of the buildings, the exterior columns only help up 40%. The core structure was sturdy enough to have acted like it's own skyscraper if it were left free standing. We know from the photographic evidence that the antenna of the North Tower dipped ~10 feet before the roofline started to move a single foot. This "roof caving in" scinareo is also indicated by the fact that the crown trusses were not found intact at ground zero (a web of connected steel columns on the roofs of both twin towers). Not saying demolition is a fact or anything, but if the twins collapsed naturally, a science-based explanation would have to explain these things. Not aware of any study that has tried to explain these observations that the conspiracy theorists gave been bringing up for over 10 years by now.

I have wondered if the shooting could have been accomplished by one person shooting from behind, but with their gun chamber alternating between low and high velocity rounds.

When I was looking at sources on this alledged fracture, I found one that said this fracture appeared on the PRE-mortem x-rays. Are we sure that this artifact exists, and it is post-mortem?

What source said that Walthers said that?

Are there any Spanish speakers who would want to type an English transcript of this 2-minute interview? https://www.wradio.com.co/escucha/archivo_de_audio/lito-porto-medico-colombiano-que-atendio-a-john-f-kennedy-luego-del-atentado/20131125/oir/2023870.aspx

All I feel qualified to say is that a 707 has four engines, while the planes that crashed into the Towers only had 2. In this context, plane engines would act like battering rams to the columns that support the buildings. So it's 2 large battering rams versus 4 slightly smaller battering rams.

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8. Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11 The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact, page 131 https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/debunking911debunkingwtcwithstand707impact2-1.pdf

As explained by AE911TRUTH member Tony Szamboti, the pulverization itself is not evidence of controlled demolition. Once the columns have no support, the heavy objects colliding with eachother would have more energy than high explosives placed on every inch of the building. The question is what made those columns have no support in the first place.

I wonder why the researchers haven't spoken out more about how Kennedy's body should be dig up and given another autopsy. Everyone agrees the first autopsy was inadequate, and that is legal precedent. Even if the body tissues were deteriorated, just studying the bones and dust would help to clarify a lot of things.

Shameless self-bump. Table of contents: Part 1: Intro Part 2: Clothing evidence Part 3: Pre-autopsy witnesses to the back wound Part 4: Missing autopsy photographs showing the interior body/lungs Part 5: Where is JFK's brain, and all of the other body specimens? Part 6: Chest tubes Part 7: Shallow back wound Part 8: The pathologists talk to the Warren Commission Part 9: Dr. Finck and the "throat wound ignorance story" Part 10: Semi-circular defect on the autopsy photographs Part 11: The Barnum statement Part 12: Possible x-rays or photographs showing probes in the body Part 13.1: Richard Lipsey and Tom Robinson Part 13.2 Part 14: Admiral Galloway Part 15: James Jenkins Part 16.1: Subsequent statements of Humes and Boswell Part 16.2 Part 17: Timeline of Dr. Perry Part 18: John Stringer Part 19: John Ebersole Part 20: William Manchester, The Death of a President Part 21: Robert Karnei Part 22.1: Reevaluating Sibert and O'Neill Part 22.2 Part 23: Sibert's timeline Part 24: O'Neill's phantom timeline Part 25.1: Timeline of the morticians Part 25.2 Part 25.3 Part 26: More witnesses time the end of the body examination Part 27: Conclusions More updates and megaposts to come.

Look, there is simply no way you can tell if someone is lying from putting a recording of their voice through a machine. Anybody who claims they can is a quack. The JFK case has a way of revealing the flaws in a lot of forensic methodology, like it did with fingerprints and bullet lead analysis. Even psychiatric evaluation can not accomplish this - in fact, psychology in general is largely a pseudoscience. I don't see how anyone can fall of something as silly as "voice stress analysis".