Micah Mileto

There is no proof for the claim that there wasn't water to fight the fires in WTC 7. There are videos of the firefighters using high-pressure hoses to fight the fires in WTC 6. And they could have used water lines connected to the Hudson river to recharge the sprinkler system (there were water couplings on the outside of the building).

Yes, I am aware of all that. But the WTC collapses were no where near as loud as a typical explosive demolition device. So If the WTC was a demolition, it probably should have involved some rare sophisticated technology.

There are some unexplained noises in the audio recordings, and the witness record, but none of those were loud enough to be comparable to ordinary cutter charges.

Yeah, I used to be in love with WTC stuff until I found JFK. I think the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse is very interesting. https://old.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/6zcttx/of_course_wtc_7_fell_from_fires_the_firefighters/ There's just no known demolition device that can create the results seen with the WTC. I have wondered if there could be a way to quickly heat the steel columns before using relatively small kicker charges on the weld splices to knock them out of place.

I understand now. The person(s) who processed the film would be considered a part of the chain of custody.

One problem I have with the "explosive demolition" WTC thing is that typical explosive devices would have been much louder than the rumble heard on the audio recordings. If the WTC was a demolition, it probably would've required sophisticated devices which may or may not have even existed back then.

Well dude, right now I'm trying to make a couple of essays on the medical evidence with as many sources as possible. I don't see any contemporaneous documents suggesting the photos' chain of custody was broken before 1965. Yes, Saundra Spencer claimed to remember a different set of photos, but that was over 30 years later. Compared to all of the other pieces of evidence, the autopsy photos have a surprisingly decent chain of custody (although that's not saying much with the JFK case).

I don't see what that has to do with the chain of custody. From what I understand, the pictures and body samples from the autopsy have an alleged chain of custody until 4/26/1965. Also, are there contemporaneous documents on Saundra Spencer being the one handling the photos?

Can you remind me which source talked about that?

Livingstone personally knew Pitzer's loved ones, it doesn't look like there's any room for such confusion.

From High Treason 2 by Harrison Livingstone, Chapter 27: A Proposal I am told of a Dr. Raymond who was also found shot to death at Bethesda, and who had been at the autopsy. His widow, who worked in a bank, described many details of the autopsy to an acquaintance. Unfortunately, I am unable to find any record of a Dr. Raymond who is deceased and who might have been in the military or at Bethesda Naval Hospital, or who might have known something about the assassination.

Even if the New Orleans suspects didn't plan the actual assassination, would you say they at least point to Oswald being an agent?

Isn't the "red blob" on the Zapruder film supposed to be the bloody inner surface of a piece of skull that was hanging off the edge of the large defect? I that case, the large head wound officially be somewhere just above the red blob. On the film, it is hard to see a large head wound because of the hair, shadows, and artifacts getting in the way.

From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 11/27/1963, Movies Reconstruct Tragedy by Arthur J. Snider, Chicago Daily News Service: The 6.5 mm bullet-about .25 caliber - pierced the President's neck just below the Adam's apple. It took a downward course. "If you're wearing a bow tie, the position is just about where the knot is," said a Dallas neurosurgeon who saw the wound. [...] Identification of two points of entry, the throat and the skull, was made by Dr. Kemp Clark, neurosurgeon, and Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland Hospital. They said neither bullet was recovered in the hospital emergency room. One bullet was said to have emerged from the left temple. ([link 2, The Akron Beacon Journal, 11/28/1963, What Was Correct Bullet Sequence? First 2 hit JFK, Film Indicates by Arthur J. Snider, Beacon Journal, Chicago Daily News Wire]) From the Boston Globe, 11/27/1963, President's Neck, Head Hit by Bullets by Herbert Black: The Globe has got from an unofficial but authoritative source here what is believed to be an accurate description of the course of events. […] When he was struck, he apparently turned his head toward Mrs. Kennedy (to the left) and began to slump. A second bullet then tore into his left temple and emerged from the right top of his head, the mortal wound. This information did not come from doctors at the hospital here, who have said they were too busy trying to save the President to study the trajectory of the bullets. It is, however, from a source in position to know the facts, which were ascertained at the Naval Hopital in Bethesda, where Mr. Kennedy was taken. This information was doubted at first because it reported that the President was hit on the left temple. It did not seem reasonable that a sniper above and to the right behind the car could hit him on the left side, but information from a film taken of the events tends to corroborate this. The FBI is investigating all aspects of the shooting and that is believed to be the reason why the official medical reports from the naval hospital have not been released. From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 11/30/1963, UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN DESPITE POLICE VIEW OF KENNEDY DEATH – Did Assailant Have an Accomplice? by Richard Dudman: There have been two other reports of injury to the President’s head. One of the physicians who attended him in Dallas said afterward that he had noticed a small entry wound in the left temple. Another person, who saw the President’s body a ‘few minutes after he died,’ told the Post-Dispatch he thought he had observed a wound in the President’s forehead. He asked that his name not be used. Reports of the temple and forehead wounds could have referred to the same injury.

The link to the press conference transcript is not working. Can anybody send me a file? EDIT: Found it! https://jfkassassinationfiles.files.wordpress.com/2019/08/parkland_press_1327btranscript.pdf

It's been my signature for like a year. I think the quote is good if you acknowledge the many interpretations it could have.

So far, here's a list of named witnesses who made statements suggesting a small wound in the front of the head: 1. Dr. George Burkley (as relayed by Malcolm Kilduff), 2. Tom Robinson, 3. James Curtis Jenkins, 4. Dennis David, 5. Joe O'Donnell, 6. Quentin Schwinn, 7. Dr. Robert McClelland, 8. Dr. Marion Jenkins, 9. Dr. Ronald Jones, 10. Dr. Lito Porto (as relayed by Dr. Jones), 11: Dr. Gene Akin, 12. Dr. W. David Stewart, 13. Father Oscar Huber, 14. Malcolm Kilduff, 15. Hugh Huggins Possible physical evidence: 1. The f8 open-cranium photos showing at least one hole in the right scalp, 2. At least three medical professionals have said the right lateral skull x-ray shows what may be a small hole in the forehead resembling a bullet entry - Neurologist Dr. Michael Chesser, neurologist Dr. Joseph N. Riley, and radiation oncologist Dr. David Mantik, 3.The autopsy diagram showing a "0.4 cm" and a "3 cm" mark on the left side of the head, 4. the v-shape incision, 5. the semi-circular dark shot on the photos of the right forehead next to the v-shape

So Gene Akin claimed to have seen a small wound in the front of the head? Is there any way you have a photocopy of this document? There's also this part from High Treason 1 (1989): [...Part II: The Medical Evidence, Chapter 2p: The President’s Head Wounds And The New Evidence Of Forgery, The Hole In The Back Of The Head] Dr. Gene Akin was an Anesthesiologist at Parkland at the time. He told the Warren Commission that “the back of the right occipital-parietal portion of (Kennedy’s) head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”43 “I assume that the right occipital parietal region (right rear) was the exit”44 Akin reaffirmed this to the Globe team and basically did not accept the official picture. On seeing the sketch, he said, “Well in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it’s more occipital.”45 Akin further said that Dr. Kemp Clark saw the entry wound in the temple. The index cites a tape accessed by the authors.

Aren't Drs. Lito Porto and Richard Jones pretty much the last two living witnesses who saw the body at Parkland? I would have one question for each of them if it weren't impossible to get into contact with them: What was all of this about when Dr. Jones participated in the ground interview with the ARRB? Quote: MR. GUNN: [...] Then to Dr. Jenkins he refers -- this is from packet MD 96. He refers to a great laceration on the right side of the head temporal and occipital. He also says the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. In his testimony to the Warren Commission he said that -- on Page 48 he thought that this wound in the head was a wound of exit, although he wasn't sure. He said, quote, "I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound." He then said that, "I thought there was a wound on the left temporal area right in the hairline and right above the zygomatic process." From Page 51 of his Warren Commission testimony he says, "Because the wound with the exploded area of the scalp, as I interpreted it being exploded, I would interpret it being a wound of exit, and the appearance of the wound in the neck, and I also thought it was it a wound of exit." Finally in his testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations he said, There was one segment of bone blown out. It was a segment of occipital or temporal bone. He noted that a portion of the cerebellum, lower rear brain, was hanging out from the hole in the right rear of the head. [...] And finally with Dr. Peters -- last but not least, of course. This is from Page MD 4O, testimony to Mr. Specter of the Warren Commission. On Page 71 he says that he noticed there was a large defect in the occiput. Dr. Peters then says, "It seemed to me that in the right occipitoparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area." He goes on to say, "We saw the wound of" -- I'm sorry, that refers just to the throat wound. In my very lay sense -- and I am not a doctor -- there seems to be a fair degree of coherence among the testimony that you offered about the location of the wound. There, of course, is a difference in the way that you said it, as would be expected in any case. I'd like to start out -- and that's the last major part that I hope to play in this discussion. I'd like to start out, if we could -- and maybe just start with Dr. Jones and then just go down the room -- of first where you were in trauma room No. 1 and what kind of view you had of President Kennedy in trauma room No 1, Dr. Jones. DR. JONES: I was on his left side below the arm looking to my right I could easily see the neck wound I could not see in much detail the posterior wound, but did not see any flap of skull or anything laying out to the right side I saw relaxation of the facial tissues & perhaps of the hair, and I remained on the President's right side during the entire resuscitation attempt. MR. GUNN: Did you ever go around and observe the left side? DR. JONES: Left side. Excuse, I was on the left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. DR. JONES: Was I saying right side? MR. GUNN: So all of your view was of the left side? DR. JONES: All my view was from the President's left side. MR. GUNN: Okay. Did you ever go around and observe the right side of the - DR. JONES: I did not go around to the right side. MR. GUNN: Could you observe any posterior wound on -- of the head from the left side where you were? DR. JONES: At one point after we had completed the insertion of the chest tubes, IV, and tracheotomy, I looked up over the top of the President's head and from that view was all that I saw. But with him flat on the table, I could not appreciate the size of that wound but did not see a lot of skull or brain tissue on the table, some maybe, but not just a tremendous amount and certainly did not see a flap turned on the right side. MR GUNN: Were you yourself able to identify any cerebellum or cerebrum tissue on the table? DR. JONES: If there was I thought -- from my vantage point, I thought that it was a very small amount. MR. GUNN: And were you able to identify one form of brain tissue versus another? DR. JONES: No - MR GUNN: Okay. DR JONES: - but did see the very small wound which I thought was an entrance wound to the head. That was pretty clear. [...] DR. McCLELLAND: Let me just tell you that Paul brought it up. Dr. Jenkins, when I came in the room, told me as I walked by to come up to the head of the table and he said , Bob, there's a wound in the left temple there. And so I went to the table and I thought, you know, knowing nothing else about any of the circumstances, that's like that (indicating). MR. GUNN: Just for the record, you're pointing in with your - DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, the left temple - MR. GUNN: -- finger at the left temple and now the back o the head. DR. McCLELLAND: -- came out the back. And there was a lot of blood on the left temple. There was blood everywhere, but there was a lot of blood on the left temple, so I didn't question that. And in fact, in something else -- Pepper testified somewhere else, he denied that he said that to me in the Warren Commission. And I told him -- I said Pepper, don't you remember? No, I never said that, Bob, and I never said the cerebellum fell out. Well, yes, you did, too, but I didn't argue with him. But the upshot of it is what that led to was Mr. Garrison's case in New Orleans, and he put together a scenario where he thought someone -- because of what I had said about the left temple bullet -- was in the storm sewer on the left side of the car and fired this bullet that killed the President, another gunman. He didn't say that Oswald was not there. He just said there was another gunman. And so he never contact -- Garrison never contacted me until it was essentially time to have the case in court. DR. PETERS: Clay Shaw. DR. McCLELLAND: Right. And so I got a call one morning and it was from his office -- one of the people in Garrison's office, and he wanted to know if I would come to New Orleans and testify. And I said, Well, you know, it's odd that none of you had talked to me before this. I've been hearing something about it on television and whatnot. And they said, Well, we assumed that you still believed that the course of the bullet was as you said in your written testimony right after, and I said no. And his voice went up about three octaves and he said, What? And I said no, and I explained to him that I had learned other things about the circumstances at the time and that Jenkins had told me I didn't see any wound here. I was just stating what I had been told and that I wrote that down in my written statement right after the assassination. And so that was -- kind of took the wind out of the sails in that particular prosecution. DR. JONES: I have two comments relating to this, what's just been said and my comment. The afternoon of the assassination we were up in the OR and Lito Puerto -- I think it's L-i-t-o, Puerto, P-u-e-r-t-o -- was in the OR - DR. PETERS: Neurosurgeon.. DR. JONES: -- and he said he was -- that he referred to the President -- because he had been down there and he said, I put my -- he was shot in the leg. I said, he was shot in the left temple. He said, I put my finger in the hole, and I think that was part of -- DR. McCLELLAND: I never heard that. That's news to me. DR. JONES: And so -- in fact, I told Mr. Haron the other day -- I gave him Lito Puerto's name and his telephone number. I said you know if you're going to have the group down here, why don't you get Puerto down here to clarify that comment, if indeed that were the case or it's not the case But I think that was part of where some of that came from. The other comment that -- to clarify what I said regarding Arlen Specter, I'm saying [sic] that he pressured me because that was after the testimony that I had given. I think what he was implying was that - DR. PERRY: Discretion. DR. JONES: -- that you - you could get people to testify that the President had been shot from the front. DR. PERRY: He was asking you to be discreet - DR. JONES: I think that's right. DR. PERRY: -- not to -- not to talk too much. DR. JONES: Not to talk about -- he didn't say don't - DR. PERRY: He didn't know you weren't going to talk about it. DR. JONES: -- don't say what you think, but he suggested that I not talk about what he was telling me. MR. GUNN : Okay. DR. PERRY: He didn't know you weren't going to talk about it anyway. DR. JONES: Not for 35 years. MR. GUNN: I think that each of you has now responded to the question about whether you had felt any pressure except for Dr. McClelland unless I missed that. DR. McCLELLAND: I felt no pressure. MR. GUNN: No pressure? Did anytime -- anything ever happen subsequently to the Warren Commission where you felt any pressure from anyone, the Government, to testify one way or the other about this? DR. McCLELLAND: No. DR. JONES: No. MR. GUNN: You're all shaking your heads Dr. Peters, is that -- DR. PETERS: No, I've never felt any pressure. The only -- well, fine. DR. McCLELLAND: When did Lito say he did that? DR. JONES: It was that afternoon. DR. McCLELLAND: That afternoon. DR. JONES: It was my -- it was that afternoon, and I believe we were upstairs, but he had mentioned that he had put his finger into the -- and he was sort of known as the guy that went down and put his fingers in missile -or bullet -- DR. PETERS: Brains. DR. JONES: -- wounds, and that was his comment at the time. Transcript: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Parkland_8-27-98.pdf What did Ronald Jones mean when he talks about having direct knowledge of a small bullet wound in the head?

Can you point me back to any info on radio communication in Dealey Plaza?

Well, "one day" could also mean "one decade" or "one century".

One day the bodies of both will be exhumed.

I sent you a copy of the Nashville Banner story on Stewart, and made a thread about it here. The "late 60's mcclelland statement" was a post from you I was quoting. Any way you can show the late 60's statement McClelland indicated there was no trach incision?

Any chance you could share the McClelland statement?

It would be one thing if an audio tape could determine more than 8 shots, but then again, why would one choose to use 22s in a multiple-shooter conspiracy to kill someone? The only answer is the fact that 22s are the easiest to quiet. A noise-suppressor could quiet a 22 shot to a mere echo.