Micah Mileto

24 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Micah:

I think you are missing the worst part by not having RFK in the drawing.

If I recall correctly, the LAPD says that the bullet that hit Schrade was the same one that hit RFK, and that the bullet went through Kennedy's jacket going from back to front.  

 

Dan Moldea's work on the RFK and JFK cases has been, to say the least, not very helpful.  I will never forget how he cooperated with the other side to attack Oliver Stone and JFK when it first came out.  Him and Blakey and their nutty Mafia did it schemes.

BTW

Is it fair to say that even if Sirhan did say "...because that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second", he was joking? Lisa Pease talked about Sirhan's sense of humor in the same BOR show.

Suddenly, in the midst of their conversation, Sirhan started to explain the moment when his eyes met Kennedy's just before he shot him. Shocked by what Sirhan had just admitted, McCowan asked, "Then why, Sirhan, didn't you shoot him between the eyes?" With no hesitation and no apparent remorse, Sirhan replied, "Because that son of a bitch turned his head at the last second."

Speculation about shot sequences must take into account the true location of Paul Schrade's head wound.

Lisa Pease on Black Op Radio show #581 from June 7, 2012, timestamp 19:19:

"Interestingly enough, Paul Schrade was hit on the top of his head at a downward angle. And I did not know until just a few months ago, I see Paul Schrade fairly regularly, he and I are both big liberal activists and we often cross paths at events. In fact, I saw him last night, there was a gathering at the RFK inspiration park to honor Robert Kennedy's memory and I talked to him there. So, at one of these recent meetings I asked him 'can I feel your wound? I wanna feel where the shot went in' and I expected- cause I always read he was shot in the forehead, I expected he would point to somewhere below his hairline, and instead he pointed to a spot about two or three inches above his hairline near the top of his head, and I'm like 'how could a bullet enter from that angle?' If it came from Sirhan and Sirhan's firing straight ahead- and, of course, he had no answer for that and I said 'could you have been looking down?' and he said 'No, I wasn't looking down, I was looking straight ahead'."

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Its in that long Secret Service report that Harold Weisberg uses in Whitewash 2.

I don't have it anymore since I gave all my files to Bill Davy for a rewrite of his book.

 

But Harold quotes that part about the no scope aspect in Whitewash 2 on page 16.

Thanks for pointing in the right direction. Here's the excerpt on Google Books: https://books.google.com/books?id=s8ktAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28&dq="weisberg"+"whitewash"+"scope"&source=bl&ots=yG-ykJyZ-h&sig=JJJbGwf-0d2nkD2RmaXoMZSecBc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin7Yn-1u3SAhXC1CYKHVMfDV0Q6AEIKzAD#v=onepage&q="weisberg" "whitewash" "scope"&f=false

On 11/16/2015 at 8:46 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Brian S.:

The rifle that Oswald owned. The one that Marina repeatedly refers to in her testimony.

Excuse me, but this is simply not the case. And when we had people like Farley, Josephs, Hogan etc on this forum, it would have been called out immediately.

On multiple counts. And any lawyer would have ripped it to smithereens.

In her first Secret Service interview, she said she was shocked when she first saw the alleged rifle in evidence.

Why? Because the rifle she said she saw Oswald with did not have a scope. (Reclaiming Parkland, by James DiEugenio, p. 62)

Now, if we watch how Marina's story changed in this regard, things get very interesting. Because her story changes just as her story did about the Imperial Reflex Camera. Because by the time she was dressed up and ready to go for the WC, that rifle that shocked her at first now became "the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Geez, you think that deal she signed with that phony film company for 135,000 bucks (about 900 K today) had anything to do with that switcheroo?

Need I add, the rifle that the FBI says Oswald ordered is not the rifle in evidence.

Let us never lose sight of that fact. Because it is a fact.

•  

Jim,

What "first Secret Service interview" do you mean? In Reclaiming Parkland, you cite :

Report of Agent Charles Kunkel dated December 3, 1963, “Activities of the Oswald family from 11/24-30/ 63."

but upon closer inspection there is no mention of rifles or scopes in that report.

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

True.  All I have to offer is this:

HarveyandLee.net

--Jim

Here's a full PDF ebook file of Harvey and Lee: http://krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee.pdf

CD-ROM contents in a zip file:  krusch.com/books/kennedy/Harvey_And_Lee_CD_ROM.zip

Re-watching this program, I saw that their test bullet was several times more deformed than they tried to make it look. The whole thing was bent at like a 45 degree angle. They just held it up to the camera a certain way to make it look less deformed. Very sneaky!

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Micah,

Thanks for the reply.  What do you make of the official head photographs, in which some show the back of the head to be completely intact, and others show an apparent obliteration?  Do we not have contradictory photographs?   What is your theory of this?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I think Pat Speer's website has a great bit explaining how the arrangement of the scalp and bone flaps may have given the wrong impression of the large head wound in certain photographs. The films do show the large head wound extending somewhat to the back (parietal), but the BOH photographs conceal that with the Doctor holding up a flap of scalp. 

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

MIcah,

I think medical science is quite advanced.   How are brains preserved these days?   Formaldehyde?  Something more sophisticated?   It is my layperson's opinion that the latest in medical science continues to preserve JFK's brain for release on Thursday 26 October 2017.  

I believe this because Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that all JFK evidence was being preserved for release in 75 years (starting 1964).  This was signed as an Act by LBJ.   Thanks to President GHW Bush and the JFK Records Act, I expect to see JFK's brain in October of this year.   Don't you?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul,

(All of this assuming the official medical evidence is true and accurate) The condition of the brain is already proof positive of two head shots if you consider it proven that the rear entry in the scalp and skull was low in the head, near the EOP, no higher than the level of the ears. Some like the theorize that it was below the EOP, but it's all the same if it was slightly above. The cerebellum isn't totally destroyed in the official brain photographs, so we would only have the option of saying a missile only grazed past it and hit the floor of the skull, i.e. didn't and couldn't exit the top-right side of the head.

Was the Stemmons Sign shot idea ever taken very seriously? What's the evidence?

Is this supposed to be an actual hole created by a whole bullet penetrating the wall? If so, why does it look like that?

7 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Don't  forget that the magic bullet could have actually caused the back wound and somehow could have fallen out, was found, and then was assigned its magic bullet status.

The shape  of  that bullet fits perfectly in the hole seen in the photo of the back wound.

Wouldn't it have probably fallen out in his shirt at Parkland hospital, unless it was literally sticking out of the wound in which case it could have fallen into the limousine?

For those who suspect that Oswald didn't know or suspect anything was going to happen on November 22, what is the standard refutation for him apparently leaving his money and wedding ring behind?

So the lady who said "I think he (Lee Harvey Oswald) was a government agent." was herself a government plant and not the actual mother of Lee Harvey Oswald?

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

But you DON'T have the barely damaged right cerebellum.

JFK's clothes are in the National Archives.

The location of the brain is unknown -- all you have are eye witness accounts, x-rays and autopsy photos much of it contradictory.

You have multiple shooters with the official evidence being real or fake. The official brain photographs don't show the right cerebellum demolished like you'd expect from a EOP entry wound connecting to the top-right side of the head. So any single-assassin theorist must support the cowlick thing, which is ridiculous. If more experts came out and said the X-rays could be compatible with the EOP wound, the single assassin scenario collapses.

5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The autopsy photos were not prepared according to proper military autopsy protocols, and there is no chain of possession for them.

The autopsy photos have no weight as scientific evidence in a murder case (to paraphrase the HSCA conclusions).

You have your low holes in the shirt/jacket, and I have my barely damaged right cerebellum. Nothing has to be forged for the EOP wound and the lack of severe cerebellar damage to prove a conspiracy. So if anybody wants to say there was a posterior exit wound, why would they cover that up something else that could easily be proof of conspiracy?

Do you guys think the medical forgeries were created with the EOP entry wound in mind, or something different like the cowlick entry? If so, why didn't they make the right cerebellum area on the x-rays/surrogate brain show more damage? You can prove conspiracy without anything being fake.

Here's that full audio book of the Lopez report, for free:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oqu24yfyb6humx8/HSCA_Oswald-the-CIA-and-Mexico-City_Our-Hidden-History.zip?dl=0

On 4/17/2015 at 3:40 AM, David Von Pein said:

RONALD WIECK SAID (AT FACEBOOK):

I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Ronald, very much.


TRACY RIDDLE ["TLR"] SAID:

A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay:

http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.

~yawn~

And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between.

And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?.....

"Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay

Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~

But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body.

But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole.

Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tracy,

I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do).

Regarding Howard Brennan....

Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it?

And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.

MARTIN HAY SAID:

Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle.
 

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate?

So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?

At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit.

Lots more here....
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-918.html

-----------------------

I know this is an old post, but I hate Ronald Wieck. Some moments with him on Hardfire are funny, but that's about it. On a 9/11 Forum, he described a long phone call he had with demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who famously insisted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition from the day he saw the footage and afterwards until he died in a car accident. Wieck mentioned telling him about all of the firefighter's testimonies saying how big the fires were on the floors of WTC 7 and how long they lasted. Of course, that's all probably meaningless because the steel columns of WTC 7 had functional fireproofing material on them, something that even NIST admitted. That's why an unusual, rare event like some situations with low-heat thermal expansion is the favorite hypothesis among mainstream engineering material on the collapses. Wieck mentions telling Jowenko of the firefighters expecting WTC 7 to collapse because it was perceived at the time that it was a heavily damaged lost cause. However, we now know that the foreknowledge of WTC 7's collapse originated from a mysterious unidentified "engineer", who told the fire chiefs at about 11:30 AM that the building would collapse "in about five or six hours". What a eerily accurate premonition for only about an hour after the North Tower collapsed! Wieck concluded his rant by calling Jowenko an idiot. Even if Jowenko is ultimately wrong, he has more expertise than Ronald quoting out-of-context firefighter statements. Why would anybody care about what he thinks of this?

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim, of course, is right about NAA being discredited for use in bullet lead analysis -- a forensics procedure called Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CLBA).

According to the Wikipedia article on the Single Bullet Theory:

"The technique used by Guinn to analyse the bullet lead from the JFK assassination was a form of what has become known as Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). Until 2004 the FBI used this technique to determine whether a crime scene bullet lead sample came from a particular box of ammunition or a particular batch of bullets....

"However, the validity of CBLA was discredited in a 2002 paper ("A Metallurgical Review of the Interpretation of Compositional Bullet Lead Analysis") co-authored by [Erik] Randich and by former FBI Chief Metallurgist, William Tobin.

"The 2002 Tobin/Randich paper prompted the National Academy of Sciences .... to review the science of bullet lead analysis. In a report in 2004 the NAS found the scientific basis for matching bullet sources from the analysis of bullet lead composition as practiced by the FBI was flawed. As a result of that report, the courts appear to have stopped accepting this evidence and the FBI has stopped using bullet lead analysis for forensic purposes."

 

Here is a free copy of that scientific paper in PDF format: http://libgen.io/scimag/ads.php?doi=10.1016%2Fs0379-0738(02)00118-4&downloadname=

With a shallow back wound, couldn't a bullet just sort of squeeze out naturally? It would most likely fall within the tucked-in shirt if it happened before the clothing was removed, but still.

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks, Micah. That version of the photo (above) goes a long way toward debunking the crazy theory in which many conspiracy theorists postulate the notion that a large "black patch" was inserted over JFK's head in the photo to artificially cover up virtually all of the right-rear quadrant of Kennedy's head (to cover up the alleged huge hole that supposedly existed in that part of his head).

But in the version you posted above, we can clearly see most/many of the individual hairs on Kennedy's head in the right-rear area. So that's obviously not a "black patch" there. (Or did some clever fellow using Paint Shop decide to fake the picture by adding in the individual hairs on JFK's cranium? Maybe some CTer can advance that theory now.)

BTW, those individual hairs are also easily visible in a couple of the black-and-white autopsy photos I've seen of the back of JFK's head as well. And one of those pictures I have on my computer is (I think) a second-generation print sent to me by researcher John Fiorentino several years ago. The picture, as I understand it, was sent to John by David Belin. (Forgive me if I'm wrong in that assumption, John. I discuss that photo here [two-thirds of the way down the page]).

But even that version you posted, Micah, will still probably not sway the opinion of some of those "black patch" CTers, because there's still a little bit of a dark area in the lower-right. So some CTers can still cling to the "black patch" theory even with that "brightened up" version of the photo (even though some of the exact same type of "blackness" can be seen in various other portions of the photo too).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-895.html

Isn't having an entry wound near the EOP is just as bad as having a big exit wound there? There's not enough damage to the cerebellum to warrant such a deflection, so the bullet must've just grazed it. Therefore, the large head wound had to be created by a separate shot. And we have mountains of evidence for the EOP wound. The EOP wound was the official story for a long time, and was always the official story for the doctors who handled the body and made the records. Other autopsy witnesses mention it too.

17 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Let's approach the "BOH" issue this way....

1.) We know (or at least I do) that there was ONE bullet hole of entry in the back of JFK's head.

and....

2.) We have an autopsy photo (the one below) which appears to show ONE bullet wound of entry in the back of JFK's head.

Now, I wonder what the odds are of having the ONE wound of entry that we know existed in JFK's head NOT being the ONE AND ONLY thing in this picture that resembles a bullet hole?

Food for thought.....isn't it?

 

You can't take a photograph out of context when the correct context has just been given to you in plain english. There are actually many dark spots on the BOH photographs which may or may not resemble entry wounds. An alterationist may wonder if those dark spots were added so we can be here in 2017 debating which, if any, spot is the true wound while getting nowhere, but I can accept those dark spots as as simply a weird thing that happened in real life. If you think the red spot looks like an entry wound (even though it's not in the same size, shape, or location as in the autopsy report), then weirder things have happened. You can't believe in anything in this case without accepting a few weird things.

BTW your version makes the red spot appear artificially dark. Here's a better version:

28 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Simple: they tidied up JFK's hair before taking the "red spot" BOH picture. Why is that so impossible to believe?

From Humes and Boswell's HSCA interview:

Dr. PETTY. Then this ruler that is held in the photograph is simply to establish a scale and no more?

Dr. HUMES. Exactly.

Dr. PETTY. It is not intended to represent the ruler starting for something?

Dr. HUMES. No way, no way.

Dr. PETTY. What is this opposite-oh, it must be, I can't read it-but up close to the tip of the ruler, there you are two centimeters down.

Dr. BOSWELL. It's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp.

Dr. PETTY. That's the posterior-inferior margin of the lacerated scalp?

Dr. BOSWELL. It tore right down to that point.

From Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony:

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to in the color photograph the round, reddish marking just to the right of the ruler, very near the top of the ruler.

A. Yes.

Q. Could that round or ovular-shaped marking be the entrance wound?

A. No.

Q. What is that, if anything, that round or ovular-shaped marking?

A. I think it's the--this is awfully near the front of the scalp fragment here, and here is a laceration up here with complete separation. And when--

Q. You're referring there to the very top of the scalp--

A. Just under the fingers that's holding the scalp up. And if you let--when you let this fall down, in one of the previous photographs--

Q. I'm sorry. Just for the record, you're letting the scalp fall down towards the back and cover where the ruler would be?

A. Yes. If you let that fall down, then this would be right in the midline and that line that you asked me about where the tissue was separated but not completely separated. And I think this is probably the other side of that traumatic disfigurement of the scalp.

Q. If I understood you correctly, were you saying that that marking that we've been pointing to that is near the top of the ruler and somewhat to the right might be the beginning or at least part of the laceration in the scalp?

A. Yes. That's occurring from beneath with the explosion of the bullet.

Q. I'd like you to note the parting of the hair that goes at approximately a 45-degree angle irregularly out to the right. Is that hair that is being pulled to the left covering part of the laceration?

A. Probably. I can see it; probably up in here, at least.

22 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

DVP,

Yet in this other photo from the JFK gallery, the back of the head seems to be obliterated.   In the photo you showed, showing the back wound, the back of "JFK's" head was neatly groomed.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul,

If that's the back of the head, then what's the top of the head?

Although some may question Parkland nurse Diana Bowron's contact with Livingstone because her WC testimony doesn't indicate that she saw the back wound, there is this bit in the book Killing The Truth: