Micah Mileto
-
Posts
2,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Micah Mileto
-
-
On 7/29/2015 at 8:25 AM, David Lifton said:
(a) the case for the back wound being false (as stated in Best Evidence) is a very strong one; and . .
I might have something to add onto that.
Finck's report to General Blumberg contains the out-of-place phrase "black fouling": "...In my opinion, the oval wound in the right posterior superior aspect of the chest of Kennedy was an ENTRY. The edges were fairly regular and there was black fouling of the edges". According to scientific literature on gunshot wounds, "fouling" refers to the residue of burned gunpowder and soot spread from the discharge of a firearm at very CLOSE RANGE (JCLC, 1948; AJCP, 1953; CSLR, 1964; AJCP, 1969). Officially, Finck's reference to "black fouling of the edges" can only be interpreted as a mistake.
-
1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:
If you can, do so. Have him ask him if there was an entrance wound in JFK's tight temple hairline or right forehead hairline.
He's already talked about a hole in the temple, that he thought was an exit for a fragment. His ARRB drawing depicts this hole as a triangle above the right ear.
-
On 6/10/2019 at 12:24 AM, Cory Santos said:
Do you have any citations that the 1980's interviews were "planned in advance". Do you mean he was told what to say? By whom? For what reason? He lied then? Which interviews specifically? What proof of this do you have?
Thanks.
Sirhan's brother told Lisa Pease. Pease said this in her CSPAN talk.
-
14 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
There's not a thing wrong with the quality of the autopsy photographs. The only thing "poor" about them is the fact they're multi-generational copies. The originals (which were examined in detail by the Clark Panel and the HSCA) are undoubtedly crystal clear.
Why Evan Marshall would expect crystal-clear clarity from multi-generational bootlegs is anybody's guess.
So, what we have in this thread is a conspiracy theorist inventing a problem (and a controversy) that never existed in the first place. (Which is par for the CT course.)
Related Discussion:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP Acquires High-Quality Copy Of Autopsy Photograph
On 3/21/1996, the Assassination Records Review Board interviewed a medical photographer named Earl McDonald, who was a former student of John Stringer. When asked to judge the quality of the photographic inventory credited to Stringer, McDonald listed several complaints:
-There are no autopsy tags visible in any photos;
-There are no whole body photos in the collection;
-There is no photograph of the brain (at autopsy) immediately following removal from the cranium;
-There is no photograph of the inside of the skull (following removal of the brain) showing the condition of the inside of the cranium;
-There is no photograph of the reassembled skull;
-There is no photograph of the chest cavity;
-There is no extreme close-up of the back wound;
-There is no wide-angle view and/or medium-field view of the cranium viewed from the outside (to go with the extreme close-up in the collection).
When asked by ARRB staff what grade he would assign if he were asked to grade the present collection of autopsy photos, he said he would grade them “quite low,” because among other reasons, the collection was not comprehensive (that is, did not represent the range of views that should have been depicted from either a normal autopsy, or especially of an autopsy involving gunshot wounds)
([ARRB MD 228](https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md228.pdf))
-
4 hours ago, Cory Santos said:
If Sirhan did not do it can someone explain why in multiple interviews he confessed? Was he hypnotized in the 1980's?
Sirhan confessed to having a possible motive, but didn't confess to planning or remembering the shooting. Also, the questions and answers for his 1980's interview were planned in advance.
-
8 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
Does modern day technology explain how he was shot behind the right ear, from in front?
You started the thread.
Not saying I agree with it.
-
-
On 2/24/2014 at 3:37 PM, Thomas H. Purvis said:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What would appear to be a true researcher!
Now, delete the word "alledgely", as the three shots in approximately 5.6 seconds is BS.
Factually, there were only two shots in this elapsed time.
Shot#3 did not occur until approximately 1.9 seconds AFTER the Z313/Shot#2 headshot.
And, due to the short elapsed time, this had to be what is referred to as a "Snap Shot" in which one throws the rifle up, and utilizing it's fixed iron sights, shoots.
Which shot, by the way also struck JFK in the head.
Tom
Is this Purvis: https://www.gctimesonline.com/obituaries/article_9882c6c8-bf42-11e3-98da-001a4bcf6878.html ?
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Can you give me the chapter and page, since I might use it again when I do a new edition later on.
Chapter 5, page 13. Everybody should download a copy of this rare folder, via the link above.
-
14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Thanks Micah.
BTW, what is the title: is it Mailer's Tale or Mailer's Tales?
"Mailer's Tales of the JFK Assassination"
-
I FOUND IT
https://web.archive.org/web/20120527165459/http://jfk.hood.edu:80/index.shtml?browse.php Collection >Weisberg Subject Index Files Original >HW Manuscripts >Mailer Manuscript
Get it while it's hot: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GBHBXYEAVSa2xpldDh6DpKow5bPg5Onx
Excerpt from Chapter 5:
I have no way of knowing what Dean Andrews told the FBI. Andrews and I had a friendly relationship. He did tell me that Shaw and Bertrand were one. I then had written all of Oswald In New Orleans but I did not add that to the final chapter of it that I wrote after my first trip to New Orleans, that or what Jack and Loisel both told me. Shaw was then alive and a defendant.
-
7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Micah:
martin Hay discovered that and provided the link at this forum.
You may want to look for it that way.
Can't find it on his user page here, and it isn't on his blog either.
-
Dieugenio's Destiny Betrayed second edition cites an unpublished manuscript by Weisberg named "Mailer's Tale". This manuscript has a buried interview with Dean Andrews in which he admits that Clay Shaw was Clay Bertrand. Can't find it on jfk.hood.edu. Help finding it?
-
On 5/21/2019 at 2:43 AM, Joseph McBride said:
The 11/22/63 Belmont memo Doug Horne wrote about, and I wrote
about in INTO THE NIGHTMARE, is a "smoking gun" document
that disproves the Warren Report, since that bullet "lodged
behind the President'e ear" was never entered into evidence.
It is the shot that struck Kennedy in the right temple from the front and blew the brains out the back of his head. Various
witnesses (including William Newman, Emmett J. Hudson, George Hickey, Sam Kinney, and
Bobby W. Hargis) reported seeing Kennedy
being struck in the right side of his head. Hurchel Jacks
corroborated this after seeing Kennedy lying in
the limousine, and Assistant White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff pointed to that
area in his filmed press conference. I found this memo in 1985 and
wrote an article about it then but couldn't get it published at the time.
The memo also helps prove David Lifton's body alteration theory,
but he missed it in his research for BEST EVIDENCE.
Have you seen this one yet?
11/25/1963 memo from J. Edgar Hoover to Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, Conrad, De Loach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan:
"I told Mr. Jenkins that Oswald had four shells and only fired three shells; that we have one complete bullet found on the stretcher on which the President was carried into the hospital, which apparently fell out of the President's head; that the other two bullets were pretty well broken up but sufficiently complete to allow us to identify them as being the three fired by this particular gun"
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=104&tab=page
-
On 5/22/2019 at 2:26 AM, David Lifton said:
I do not understand your question--and specifically, what you mean when you write ""whether a full chest tube procedure was performed".
Could you please clarify? Thanks. DSL
deleted
-
28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
In addition to this previously-mentioned 2009 comment by Dr. Robert McClelland....
"Some people have even said 'Oh, that tracheostomy has been altered; it's too big a wound'. Well, I can speak for that -- no, it had not been altered. That's exactly the way it was made at Parkland. It's just that people expected it to be smaller."
....there are also these 1992 remarks concerning the size of the tracheotomy wound by four other Parkland Hospital doctors....
Dr. Charles Baxter said:
"I was right there, and the tracheostomy I observed and the autopsy photos look the same—very compatible."
Dr. Marion Jenkins (comparing the autopsy pictures with the trach wound he saw at Parkland):
"They're the same."
Dr. Charles J. Carrico:
"I've seen the autopsy photos and they are very compatible to the actual tracheostomy."
Dr. Malcolm Perry:
"Of course, tissues sag and stretch after death, but any suggestion that this wound was intentionally enlarged is wrong."
Source for the above four quotes:
The Journal Of The American Medical Association; May 27, 1992; Page 2805
So, David Lifton, do you still stand by this statement of yours from last year?....
"Dr. Perry never made an incision." -- David S. Lifton; February 27, 2018
Any chance you could find the Nashville Banner article David referenced?
-
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
They saw the bruising on the strap muscles next to the trachea, yet they didn't realize until later there was a gunshot wound in that area?
-
20 hours ago, David Lifton said:
5/20/2019 - 11:20 PM EDT
Ron,
The way events evolved is not what was supposed to happen.
JFK's body was supposed to be altered, in Dallas, and then there was to be a Dallas autopsy.
But none of that happened, once Connally was unexpectedly shot.
The result: the focus shifted to getting JFK's body out of Texas, without an autopsy, and focusing on Connally's medical treatment, so that his unexpected shooting did not foul up "the best of well laid plans."
I'll be publishing about this soon.
DSL
I've been wondering what you think about the difference between Parkland and Bethesda over whether a full chest tube procedure was performed?
-
5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Wake the neighbors and send a tweet to Donald Trump! (He'll surely want to be notified about this Breaking News!) .... 😁
I've expanded this webpage....
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I don't know how well that would turn out, man. "Hey Trump, the JFK Assassination WAS accomplished by one guy! Just look at my blog!"
-
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
But Pat, the four particles of tissue that are in the same container as the nose fragment (collectively labled CE 567) are completely separate and there is no evidence that they were attached. I am aware of nothing from the 1960's FBI investigation that acknowledges the tissue. Robert Frazier claimed that he wiped BLOOD off of the nose fragment, he mentioned nothing about tissue, and I am not aware of any blood sample that was catalogued onto evidence. The 1990's FBI re-examination of CE 567 only found non-tissue fibers embedded on the nose fragment. The tissue could have been a totally separate artifact that was added later.
-
There's this great addition I noticed on Pat Speer's website: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania
QuoteAnd that's not even to mention that Myers' depiction of the view from the sniper's nest at Z-223/Z-224 is grossly at odds with the Warren Commission's 5-24-64 re-enactment photograph of the view from the sniper's nest at Z-225...1/18 of a second later. Here, see for yourself:
QuoteNote that in the WC's re-enactment, Connally's right armpit is a foot and a half or so to the right and above the location of Kennedy's back wound. Now note that in Myers depiction Kennedy is further to the right and Connally is further to the left. and Kennedy is leaning forward while Connally is turned to the side. Now note that this magically brings Connally's back wound location in line with the crosshairs marking Kennedy's back wound location.
Well, this is a scam, a sham, a fraud, you name it. And we know this because...well, just look at the Warren Commission's photo, and compare it to Myers' animated depiction. The President's limo was a foot longer than the Secret Service limo used in the re-enactment. And yet, even so, the passenger compartment is far more compressed in Myer's depiction of the President's limo than in the WC's photo of the SS limo. Now look at the driver's side of the limos. The driver's mirror is visible in Myers' animation but not in the WC's photo. It's almost as if the invisible driver of the limo in Myers' animation has driven the left side of the limo up an embankment.
Well, it's clear, then, that the limo in Myers' depiction of the SBT is not as it would have been viewed from the sniper's nest at Z-223/Z-224, and that, instead of trying to match up his animation with the Zapruder film, along with the commission's photos from the sniper's nest, Myers reverse-engineered his animation, and conjured up the positions of Kennedy and Connally in the limo, along with the view from the sniper's nest, to help sell the single-bullet theory.
-
On 2/9/2014 at 9:42 PM, David Lifton said:
To All JFK Researchers - - David Andrews, and others reading this post:
Paul O'Connor was interviewed by Purdy (of HSCA) on 8/25/1977, and I interviewed him--by phone--exactly two years later, on 8/25/79.
A very detailed word-for-word account of part of my 8/25/79 O'Connor interview is Chapter 26 of Best Evidence (titled, appropriately, "The Recollections of Paul Kelly O'Connor").
In late October, 1980 (when my book was already into the publication process, and its release was just about 2 months away) I flew to Gainesville, Florida, and did a filmed interview with O'Connor--and high points from that interview can be viewed in the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO (first released in 1989).
Now, about the other times O'Connor was interviewed. . . :
In February, 1981, a few weeks after the release of Best Evidence, a detailed interview with Paul O'Connor appeared in the Gainesville, Florida newspaper. In 1988, Paul O'Connor was interviewed for a major documentary aired on KRON-TV (San Francisco) by Sylvia Chase and Stanhope Gould. In 1989, I (along with Pat Valentino) did a very leisurely and detailed interview with O'Connor, using a "hi-8" camera. In connection with the TV show HARDCOPY, Paul O'Connor (and Aubrey Rike) were both flown to Los Angeles. They were interviewed by the show, and then, in someone's home, another joint "Rike/O'Connor" was conducted.
I bring all this up because the movie "JFK" wasn't released until December 1991, and it was in 1991 that we had the first "ASK" conventions, and 1995 (or 1996) marked the first Lancer convention. Note: was in connection with those conventions that Paul O'Connor --for the first time--began making public appearances, himself, before audiences who had various conspiracy theories.
When the ARRB came into existence (summer of 1995) and it was arranged --largely as a result of the effort of Doug Horne--for various autopsy witnesses to testify under oath, Jeremy Gunn specifically vetoed permitting O'Connor or James Jenkins to be called. (That's a shame, but that's a whole other story).
William Law did not interview O'Connor until about 2000--over 20 years after I interviewed O'Connor (for the first time, of several).
ABOUT THE "Later" Interviews of O'Connor:
I caution anyone reading these posts to tread carefully in evaluating what O'Connor says in these later interviews because, by that time, he was no longer in the mode of genuinely recollecting, for the first time, what resided in his memory; but rather, was repeating--again and again--what he had already said before, and also, and perhaps more important--was reading various books on the assassination.
On this point: I know for a fact--from speaking directly to Paul in 1990-1992--that Harrison Livingstone was calling him up and attempting to talk him out of the fact that the body arrived in a body bag. Another person engaged in that sort of behavior was James Jenkins, who was trying to tell him that there really was a brain, and that he removed it (when Jenkins had said completely different things to me, when I interviewed hin in 1979, and then on camera in 1980).
So "beware," is all that I'm saying.
And, of course, you can also see the mess made by Bugliosi, who had O'Connor flown to London (in 1985), and then tried to confuse him with a tricky cross examination, completely unaware that O'Connor was on the record, in his original 1977 HSCA nterview with the HSCA, unequivocally stating these three critically important things about the arrival of JFK's body at the Bethesda morgue:
1, The body arrived in a shipping casket
2. the body came in a body bag, which was inside the shipping casket
3. The cranium was empty.
All of this is in O'Connor's original HSCA statement, and was repeated to me ---verbatim--in my very first (telephone) interview with him on August 25, 1979.
Because Bugliosi got it all wrong, he then had to put a footnote at the bottom of the page, in effect apologizing to O'Connor for having misrepresented his account, and conceding that he had already said these essential things to the HSCA in 1977! (And then tried to "blame the victim"--i.e., blame O'Connor for not pointing out to Bugliosi what he had already said some eight years previously!)
One other thing, and that concerns the HSCA and Robert Blakey.
After going to all the trouble to get the military gag order (dated 11/26/63, see Chapter 27 of B.E.) lifted, and after having Purdy (and FLanagan) dispatched to go around the country and interview such people as O'Connor and Jenkins (1977) and others, Blakey then had the gall to lock up this material for 50 years--meanwhile going on (with Billings) to write his "mob-did-it" book!
Bottom line: I interviewed the people Blakey locked up in 1979 over the phone; and then on camera in 1980, and the essense of those interviews were published in January, 1981, with the release of Best Evidence, and generous filmed excerpts appeared throughout public appearances on my book tour. Meanwhile, in January, 1981, Blakey--having locked up the accounts of these critical autopsy witnesses---was pushing his 'mob-did-it' book and making condescending remarks about my work.
And all this occurred after I was in contact with the HSCA about 5 times, and explained the whole business of body alteration to him in a 1-2 hour phone call in October, 1978 (See Chapter 24, of B.E.)
Below my typed signature, I am pasting in a post on the Interview that I wrote in February, 2003, which lists the 10 times (that I know of) when Paul O'Connor was interviewed.
DSL
2/9/14, 6:50 PM PST
Los Angeles, California
POSTSCRIPT --with my February, 2003 Post on the Internet
DSL Note, 1/27/14 – The post below outlines the 10 times that I know of when Paul O’Connor was interviewed. The “apology” that Bugliosi was forced to add to Reclaiming History apparently resulted from Bugliosi’s relying on whatever it was that PKO said in London, and unaware that he said something quite different (and supportive of what he said in B.E.) in his original 8/25/79 HSCA interview.
DSL Post on Newsgroup Alt.assassination.jfk;
Date: 2/6/03
From: dlifton@earthlink.net (David S. Lifton)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Paul O'Connor Told the Truth
Message-ID: 460446c1.0302060051.2f3d1ffb@posting.google.com
I am certain Paul O'Connor told the truth when I interviewed him in August, 1979. At that time, he told me three things about the JFK
autopsy:
1) The body arrived in a shipping casket
2) Inside the casket, the body was inside a body bag
3) The cranium was empty.
Elaborating, he explained that the normal procedure didn't have to be followed in this case--because the cranium was empty.
As students of this case know, there is no brain weight listed on the autopsy chart. Also, on the diagram of the skull made by Boswell, the word "missing" appears--which may refer to the skullcap, but may also refer to the contents of the cranium--i.e., the brain.
Paul O'Connor had no idea, when he spoke with me, that these facts--the three numbered observations above-- completely contradicted the official version of the JFK autopsy. He was just telling it like it was.
Moreover, Paul O'Connor had already related the same facts to Andrew Purdy, of the House Select Committee--who was so ignorant of the implications--that he had no idea what a body bag was.
When I received the Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in July 1979--via Express Mail, and within days of its public release--I certainly understood the implications of the fact that the body had arrived in a body bag, as reported in Vol 7 of that report, and footnoted to the O'Connor account, written by Purdy, but which was not released for some 14 years, under the auspices of the JFK Records Act.
In other words, although the OCR was written in 1977/78, I didn't get to see it until 14/15 years after I spoke with O'Connor on the phone.
In Chapter 26 of Best Evidence, I described what happened when I
confronted Purdy with this information. "What's a body bag?" he wanted
to know. Apparently, he wasn't watching too much TV, during the
Vietnam war years. Obviously, he had not served in Vietnam.
But Purdy, albeit embarrassed, was helpful, and it was because of
Purdy that I was able to locate and interview O'Connor, by phone, in
August 1979.
I did not have the privilege of reading O'Connor's account until about 1994.
I realized the importance of what he was telling me; I also realized it should be preserved on film.
But interviews cost money.
Back then, a film shoot such as the one I did with O'Connor was done on 16 mm negative film, involved a crew of about 3 people, and cost about $4,000 (1980 dollars).
In order not to have him ruminating about political implications, I maintained my own composure on the telephone; but told O'Connor I would like for him to repeat on camera what he had told me. He agreed---and some 14 months later, in October 1980, just 2-3 months before Best Evidence appeared in the book stores, and when I received financial support from the publisher for the project, I re-interviewed O'Connor in Gainesville, Florida--and he said the exact same thing.
Shipping casket; body bag; empty cranium.
Only now, on camera, I pulled out all the stops--I cross examined O'Connor as hard as I could, challenging him, pointing out contradictions between what he saw that night and what had been seen earlier in Dallas, and also what was in the Warren Report.
On every point, O'Connor held his ground. It is exactly for that reason why the BEST EVIDENCE RESEARCH VIDEO has such power. Because O'Connor (a) didn't understand the implications and (b ) was challenged on the implications of his observations, and without any rehearsal.
I stress: without any rehearsal. There was absolutely no "pre-interview prep." I didn't show O'Connor any record of the August 1979 interview. I didn't show him the chapter I had written in BEST EVIDENCE, and which was due to come out within about two months.
The only conversation we had after August 1979, was one sometime prior to the October 1980 interview, for the purpose of setting up an appointment, in Florida, for the interview.
So when O'Connor went on camera in October 1980 and repeated the same account he had given me in August 1979, my confidence in him only increased.
And at that time, of course, I had no access to the Outside Contact Report that Purdy had written back in 1977 or 1978.
Subsequent to my Florida visit, I learned--possibly from O'Connor—of the Florida newspaper interview, back at the time of the Purdy interview, which said the same thing.
So the "O'Connor data"—if you will—involves these separate interviews:
•1977/78-Purdy:
•Same (approx) Florida Newspaper
•August 1979--My telephone interview
•October 1980--my filmed interview
Then Best Evidence was published (first available late December 1980);
and then came another, much more elaborate, Florida newspaper
interview.
•1981 – (post B.E. Publication) – PKO in Gainesville, Florida, newspaper
So, by this time, we have 5 separate interviews--in which O'Connor was
consistent.
At some point, O'Connor was flown to England and was interviewed in
connection with the Bugliosi/Spence program called the Trial of Lee
Harvey Oswald. The production company was London Weekly Television.
I have no idea why, on that occasion, O'Connor gave a version of events that was different. I would certainly like to know what kind of pre-interviewing was done by the production company, or Bugliosi, or whoever. Because it seems inexplicable that O'Connor, having given the same account some 5 times, would change it for any reason in 1985.
And then there is this footnote: In the fall of 1988, KRON-TV--with
Sylvia Chase as the interviewer, and Stanhope Gould (who had been the
CBS producer, under Cronkite, responsible for their ground-breaking
Watergate coverage) interviewed O'Connor. I was there. Again, he
gave the same account he had given me in 1980--but, as Stanhope said
to me, it didn't have the same sense of drama that my footage did,
because it was perfectly clear, in my October 1980 interview, that
O'Connor didn't understand the implications of what he was saying. By
1988, he certainly did.
•Fall 1988 –Stanhope/Sylvia Chase interview. . .
To move on: In 1989, I returned with another professional film crew,
and this time we did an interview that was over an hour, perhaps two
hours, in length. Again, the same account, only in much greater
detail. Also, on that occasion, O'Connor swore out a statement--on
camera--to these same facts.
And then, there is one other interview: Around 1990, O'Connor and
Aubrey Rike appeared on HARDCOPY, a production of Paramount TV, here
in Los Angeles. Again, O'Connor went through the same facts, only
now he met Aubrey Rike for the first time.
Also, On that occassion, and never before having had O'Connor and Rike
together before, I arranged to have an elaborate joint interview, in
the evening. Again, the same facts.
So let's see now. . .we have how many interviews?
1. House Select Committee; 1977/78
2. Florida Newspaper: around the same time
3. August, 1979--David Lifton, via telephone
4. October, 1980-David Lifton, on camera
5. 1981, after publication of B.E.: Florida newspaper
6. 1985; London Weekly Television (Bugliosi, etc.)
7. 1988: KRON-TV (Sylvia Chase/Stanhope Guild)
8. 1989: David Lifton, 2 hr detailed interview, with signed statements
9. 1990: Hardcopy; O'Connor and Rike
10. 1990: same Los Angeles visit--detailed interview
There is only one data point in these ten events that doesn't fit—and that is the Bugliosi interview. I have no idea what was said to O'Connor in London. I doubt very much that the program flew O'Connor to London and put him up in a hotel, and did all this without any pre--interviewing. And pre-interviewing can completely vitiate the validity of what is shown on camera. It is, basically, a rehearsal.
Naturally, I would like to know what the pre-interviewing consisted of--who conducted it, and what was said.
All I can tell you is that, as the above record indicates, Paul O'Connor has been consistent, throughout my experiences with him, and they began with that first phone interview in August, 1979.
The Johnnie-Come-Latelies who come forward at this very late date, trying to discredit O'Connor by pointing to the one anomalous 1985 TV interview, and without any firm knowledge of what pre-interviewing preceded that interview, have a weak case.
Harry Livingstone once tried to twist O'Connor's words around, and attempt to misrepresent what he experienced that night, and what he said about it. After that experience, O'Connor and I had a phone conversation, in which he expressed his own dismay at Livingstone's antics.
He remembered exactly how it was, and repeated it all over again—the same basic facts--just as described in the HSCA document, and as related to me in August 1979, on the phone; and then again on camera in October 1980.
Paul O'Connor is a truth teller. It is others who are attempting to twist his account around, and pretend it is all false. It is they, not O'Connor, who are promoting an urban legend.
O'Connor saw some rather important things on the night of November 22.
That is why, within a day or so of the autopsy, he was ordered not to talk—subject to court martial.
Those on this news group who are placing their bet with Bugliosi's version of O'Connor are backing a losing proposition with little credibility.
DSL
great summary!
-
15 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
After striking the President's head from behind, the bullet fragmented and continued its FORWARD course toward the front of the limousine --- which is perfectly consistent with the "Oswald Did It" scenario.
In the version proposed by the Clark Panel/HSCA... not the actual doctors who spend hours handling JFK's skull. According to them, the small wound in the back of the head was too low to correspond to an entry for a single 6.5 shot from the Sixth Floor. Kind of blurs the lines between "scientific/peer reviewed" proof and "historically documented" proof.
-
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:
Did I miss anything else in the car being hit?
There was some information about a possible hole in the floor of the Limousine.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57753&relPageId=25
Parkland Press Conference Transcript-Kilduff-1327-B
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Moar:
Post Mortem by Harold Weisberg, p. 60, Part 1, Chapter 6. Client Truth
One of the doctors Specter did not call - whose name is not mentioned in the evidence because it was kept out by Specter - is Dr. David Stewart, who later moved to Gallatin, Tennessee. Dr. Stewart would have sworn to exactly what Dr. McClelland said - that the President was killed by a shot from the front, which, very obviously, Oswald, had he been in the sixth-floor window and some 300 feet behind the President, could not have fired.
Dr. Stewart made a Rotary club speech that was reported in the New Lebanon, Tennessee, Democratof March 30, 1967. At 8:15 a.m. April 10, he appeared on the Joe Dolan show, then on KNEW, Oakland, California.
Stewart "was in attendance at the time" of the treatment rendered all three assassination patients, but "primarily my time was spent with Governor Connally and later with Lee Oswald". Another group of physicians was taking care of the President on his entry to the emergency room, "but of course I am aware of their findings as such".
Dolan said he was particularly concerned with the "statement about the shot" that killed the President "coming from the front". Stewart said, "Yes, sir. This was the finding of all the physicians who were in attendance. There was a small wound in the left front of the President's head and there was a quite massive wound of exit at the right backside of the head and it was felt by all of the physicians at the time to be a wound of entry which went in the front. And this was later corroborated, I think, by the films which showed the President with a rather violent lurch backward."