Micah Mileto

Woah, never heard about the fake tax forms.

EDIT: Apparently Horne found some mundane explanations for at least some of the fake tax forum stuff. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/horne.txt

On 12/9/2016 at 8:38 PM, Larry Hancock said:

Micah, the best advice I could give would be to start with number 4 in my series of essays on this which discuss the issues of evidence you are interested in:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Incomplete_Justice_-_No_there_were_no_other_guns.html

 

It will refer you to several additional sources for study on the specifics of the bullet holes and physical evidence but specifically I would suggest you get and dig though the two books by Phillip Melanson who did some exceptional independent research on specifically that area, far better than anything the LAPD or the FBI did (or would admit to).

Those sources should at least get you going in the right direction.

 

 

 

Your article was good, but I'm still wondering why the alleged bullet hole looks like that.

8 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

You bother me.

What do the open-cranium photos represent? The top-back of the head, maybe with the chin resting on the chest, right? Looks like there should be more bone loss towards the left if the BOH wound is true.

And how could a BOH wound like it's traditionally interpreted co-exist with the open cranium photos? Those show something basically the same as the Rydberg drawings.

1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

You didn't answer the question.

No. So where are the bystanders who saw a BOH wound?

1 minute ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Do you think a large wound in the right rear of the head would be visible from the side?

A wound on the side would.

9 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

Know what I saw in the Z film? A great flap of pink something or other that hung down onto JFK's right cheek. What became of it?

Regarding Dealey Plaza witnesses and what they saw, why not share some of their statements with us and let us see how they compare to the Z film.

Would you consider Clint Hill a Dealey Plaza witness?

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve

At the section "the invisible hole" and under it. There doesn't seem to be any casual bystander that anybody could claim is a supreme BOH witness. They all suggest the would was on the side of the head. We have Emmett Hudson saying "it looked like it hit him somewhere along a little bit behind the ear and a little bit above the ear", but that's about as good as it gets.

2 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

The wound was described by Dr. Marion Jenkins as being occipital-temporal. Look where that would place the wound.

While the temporal bone extends up quite high into the parietal bone, the only place the occipital and temporal bones touch each other is at about the level of the ear; slightly higher than the EOP.

Dealey Plaza witnesses more or less saw what was is in the Z film.

16 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

It's possible. I've always found the autopsy photos very difficult to decipher; possibly intentionally so.

If that spot in the open-cranium photographs is the EOP wound, like it definitely looks, and the EOP wound was exactly where the autopsy report places it, then that would place the hypothetical fist-sized rear blowout extending into and above the level of the ears. Still not traditionally where this hypothetical wound would be placed, but there appears to be just enough room for a piece of cerebellum to stick out. The Z Film just has enough blackness in that area, too.

BTW, still not convinced such a wound existed. If it existed, I'd think it would have to co-exist with the temporal wound seen by the Dealey Plaza witnesses and the Z film. A Coup In Camelot suggested that a temporal wound did exist, but it was pushed back in and sealed like glue (by Jackie?).

10 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

It would have to be.

Like this?

That would still require the head to be reconstructed in such a way that leaves the hole further back in the head (between the ears, slightly to the right), right?

So, do you guys think the EOP wound was just slightly under the rear blowout?

15 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Micah, the proof of it being a bullet hole is the cop standing there pointing at it.  Questions were asked, the shooting was investigated, and holes were found.  I know the police are not always right but do you really think they'd just assume, "Oh, look...here's a hole.  Maybe a bullet hit here?  Or not?"

The same is true very early in the JFK murder.  Things were seen, witnessed and so on until it was all swept under the rug by the official story.

I'm just wondering why the bullet hole looks like that.

Also, looking at the RFK inquest exhibits with all of the police photos, I'm wondering a few more things http://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=RFK-GRANDJURY

1. In the pictures of two bullet holes circled in the wall, why are there other spots which look like smaller holes?

2. There is one picture that appears to be just a door hinge with a bit of paint scraped off. Why were they taking a picture of this?

Now that I'm just starting to get interested in the RFK shooting, I want to be sure that the investigators weren't just taking pictures of random spots what may or may not be bullet holes/ricochets. I know from witness statements there were at least one or two bullets recovered from these holes, but I want to know what value these photos hold.

9 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Actually the bullet cleanly penetrated the soft wood and embedded itself leaving only a small hole. In order to get the bullet out LAPD officers on the scene brought in a hotel maintenance man who literally dug out the bullets leaving the larger, gaping hole in the photo.  Both the police officers and the maintenance man described that to a researcher but after calls were made to superiors the police officers involved refused to comment further on confirm their earlier story in writing. I'm pretty sure I cover this in my essays and cite the source.  

The bullet sort of became a hollow cylinder and made a perfect round impression in the wood? The wood looks mostly untouched in the middle.

A quick question about RFK - if this photograph is supposed to be a bullet hole in the door frame, why does it look like this? Shouldn't it just be a small gaping hole?

6 minutes ago, Vince Palamara said:

I interviewed Jerrol Custer on 11/22/91 with Harrison Livingstone (for High Treason 2) and, again, twice in March 1998, with William Law for In The Eye of History, all  on video. Unfortunately, while Jerrol was a principal witness with some observations of value, he was tainted by his association with researcher Tom Wilson (from part 5 of The Men Who Killed Kennedy). Both Custer and Wilson died within a month or so of each other in the summer of 2000. Jerrol wasn't too bad in 1991 (the influence of Wilson, who was present for part of the interview, as well, wasn't profound yet). However, by the time 1998 rolled around, Wilson (a close neighbor and friend of his in a suburb of Pittsburgh, my hometown) had a firm grip on Custer and, thus, twisted his feelings and beliefs on certain things.

If you keep reading in Law's book from the above excerpt, you will come to Law's caveat about Custer (example: Custer was adamant that the back of JFK's head was gone, yet, by 1998, he waffled on this notion). Custer was a down and out security guard in 1998 with some health issues. Sadly, the allure of (what he hoped from JFK Lancer) big money and some fame---and the association of Wilson---clouded his judgment. I would stick with what he had to say between 1977-1988 (maybe 1991) or so and take with a grain of salt any "new revelations" circa 1998. To his eternal credit, William duly noted his reservations in the text...they were my reservations, as well.

Thank you.

Custer never said anything about seeing a bullet in the back before this book interview, correct?

I've seen a lot of sources quoting Custer's allegedly accurate accounts of the autopsy, but William Matson Law's In The Eye Of History, published in 2004, has a bit where Custer claims to have seen a whole bullet fall out of the back wound. This is the first time he ever made this claim, right?

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf

On page 132 (156 of the pdf)

7 hours ago, David Lifton said:

I have not visited the London Forum in quite some time, and I see --Pat Speer--that not much has changed.  This post is a good example.

"I studied the case full-time from 2004 - 2006 or so. . "  you inform us; well, that says something, or should.  Then you state:  "While much has been made of the large size of the trach incision, from studying old textbooks I came to realize that there was nothing that surprising about the size of the trach incision."

"Nothing that surprising"? 

Really! How selective we are, when the need arises.  Buried in all the erudition that you cite is what you fail to mention. So. . for those who wish to be informed, here are the basic facts. (All of this is "elementary" but I'll state it here, from memory).

1. I interviewed Dr. Malcolm Perry on October 27, 1966.  I was a student in Prof. Liebeler's UCLA Law class on the Warren Commission, and told him exactly that--that the course title was "Legal Problems in Areas of National Security."  I said I was assigned a paper, the purpose of which was to get the flavor of what "fact finding" was all about, and my topic was the length of the tracheotomy incision.  Perry was perfectly polite, and answered without hesitation.  The incision he made, he said, was "2- 3 cm."  Of course, I knew, before I made this phone call, that the Bethesda autopsy reported the incision as being 6.5 cm; and that when Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon, testified, he said it was "7 - 8 cm." That's in his testimony.  Look it up.

2. So, upon hearing Perry respond "2-3 cm" I raised the ante a bit, and asked Perry is it might be 4 cm.  As I write this, I don't recall his exact response, but he doubted it.  Then, whatever Perry's answer was, I then raised the ante again, asking if it perhaps was 5 cm. With each increase, Perry grew more uncomfortable, and concerned, explaining that it wasn't necessary to make an incision that large etc.

3. It was obvious to me that the incision that Dr. Perry recalled making was considerably smaller than the one reported in the autopsy, and certainly much smaller, by at least 50%, than the one to which Humes testified.

The story of my Perry phone call is laid out in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence, titled: "The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs. Bethesda."

4. Immediately after the call, I realized it had historical significance, and that the only record I had was my own memory and notes. I promptly went out and purchased a reel-to-reel tape recorder, resolving that henceforth, I would always tape such calls.

5. Over the following weeks, I studied the record closely, and began calling the other doctors.  One of the more important phone calls was with Dr James Carrico, the first to treat Kennedy upon his arrival at ER-1, and the physician who inserted the endotracheal tube.  So he saw the wound, before any cutting had been done, and before any tube --with its flange--had been inserted. Without hesitation, and without any prompting from me, Carrico provided a response that was identical to what Perry had said: "2 - 3 cm."

6. Sometime during the course of these interviews, I became aware of another important medico-legal indicia: the edges of the incision. The Bethesda autopsy reported that defect as having "widely gaping irregular edges."   Once I was aware of that, I added that question to my repertoire, and one doctor after another responded by saying the edges were "smooth" (and one said "Smooth,  of course").

7.  Another indicia of alteration concerns the question of whether the original bullet hole was visible, along the edges of the so-called "trach incision" at the time of autopsy.  Renowned medico-legal expert Dr. Milton Helpern said, in his  book Where Death Delights, that it ought to have been.  But Dr. Finck testified at the Shaw trial in New Orleans that it was not: "I examined this surgical wound. . and I did not see the small wound described by the Dalas surgeons along that surgial incisio., I did not see it."  And: "I don't know why it is not there." (Best Evidence, p. 278, original hardcover or Carrol & Graf edition).

All of this is discussed at length, and in detail, in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence--which was published in January 1981, was republished by three more publishers, and was in print for 17 years. (And yes, I'm planning another edition. Details not yet finalized).

But . . lo and behold. . along comes Pat Speer, in December 2016, over fifty years after I made these calls, and purports to define for us what is (supposedly) important. He informs us that he has looked up a bunch of books about tracheotomy incisions, and finds some contrary data.  But . . so what?  The issue is not what Pat Speer can dig up in some book: the issue is whether the tracheotomy incision changed between Dallas (at Parkland) and Bethesda (at the morgue). That's the important issue. And, of course, had a photograph been taken of Dr. Perry's incision (and one was not of course taken), then the difference between Dallas and Bethesda would be immediately apparent, there would be no debate; it would be a fact, and the issue would be: What happened to the body?

Of course, if Speer was around to deal with such an eventuality, he would probably come up with some excuse to explain that, as well.

Based on the head wound "before" and "after" data (See Chapter 13 of Best Evidence; the neck wound data (Chapter 11) and the words spoken at the time of autopsy (Chapter 12), by Humes (that it was "apparent" that there had been "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull"), plus the clear evidence of covert interception of the body (i.e., the body arriving at Bethesda in a shipping casket, a good 20 minutes before the Dallas coffin arrived with Mrs. Kennedy and Bobby), it seems clear that the body was covertly intercepted and altered.

Medical facts were changed. The story of how Kennedy died was changed.

Some of the details can be debated, but that basic fact cannot. Its stlll there, i the legal and historical record, that the body looked one way in Dallas; and another in Bethesda.

That's what Best Evidence was (and still is) all about.

What must be done to persuade you of this data, Pat Speer?

Must I send flowers?

DSL

Los Angeles, California

12/7/16 - 3:17 a.m. PST

 

Dave, what do you say about the windpipe incision indeed being 2-3 cm, however the neck incision being a completely different thing the doctors didn't know you were talking about?

On 8/13/2008 at 11:33 PM, Pat Speer said:

Right you are, Ron. I studied the medical evidence and Zapruder film for several years before coming to the conclusion that a reduced-speed bullet entering low on Kennedy's head exited his throat around frame 224. Only after I came to this conclusion did I come to the realization that not one but two autopsy witnesses claimed the doctors had come to this same conclusion.

From patspeer.com, chapter 18:

Two and a Half Witnesses

Having established, I believe, a strong case for a new perspective on the President’s wounds, the statements of three autopsy witnesses become relevant. While their memories and/or impressions could very well be wrong, if they are correct, then the conspiracy to suppress the medical evidence began much earlier than one might otherwise believe. The first witness whose statements are relevant to our analysis is Dr. George Burkley, the President’s physician. Burkley was the only doctor to view Kennedy’s remains in both Dallas and Bethesda. While he died some time ago, he nevertheless left behind a trail which tells an altogether different story than the one provided by the government.

1. The day after the assassination, Dr. Burkley prepared Kennedy’s death certificate. He listed the cause of death as simply “Gunshot wound, skull” (no specific entrance and exit). In the summary of facts he explained that Kennedy was “struck in the head” and that the wound was “shattering in type causing a fragmentation of the skull.” He said the “second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.” This location was slightly lower than the location eventually decided on by the autopsy surgeons and was far too low to be compatible with the single-bullet theory. Just as intriguing, however, Burkley’s mentioning the small entrance wound on the back discovered at the autopsy but failing to mention the small entrance wound on the back of the skull discovered at the autopsy suggests the possibility that he had doubts this small entrance wound on the skull connected to the large defect.

2. On November 27, 1963, the FBI delivered the Harper fragment to Dr. Burkley. Despite the fact that this fragment showed both internal and external beveling, which indicated that it came from a tangential wound, Dr. Burkley failed to tell Dr. Humes about the fragment. While the report of the initial autopsy had been completed, Dr. Humes had not yet inspected the brain and completed his work. Dr. Burkley never explained why he failed to tell Humes about this fragment. Did Burkley understand its importance?

3. On October 17, 1967, Dr. Burkley was interviewed by William McHugh on behalf of the Kennedy Library. When asked about the autopsy of President Kennedy, he told McHugh “My conclusion in regard to the cause of death was the bullet wound which involved the skull. The discussion as to whether a previous bullet also enters into it, but as far as the cause of death the immediate cause was unquestionably the bullet which shattered the brain and the calvarium.” While, on the surface, this seems to agree with the autopsy report, the “previous bullet” mentioned by Burkley could very well mean “the previous bullet to strike Kennedy in the skull but not shatter his calvarium.” Supporting this speculation, when McHugh asked Burkley if he agreed with the Warren Report’s conclusions “on the number of bullets that entered the President’s body,” Dr. Burkley replied “I would not care to be quoted on that.”

4. A memo created by the original chief counsel of the HSCA, Richard Sprague, and found years later in his files, indicates that on March 18, 1977, he spoke to William Illig, Burkley’s attorney. Illig told Sprague that Burkley had information indicating that Oswald did not act alone.

5. When HSCA staff member Andy Purdy finally spoke to Burkley on August 17, 1977, however, the most Burkley said about the possibility of a conspiracy was that “the doctors didn’t section the brain and that if it had been done, it might be possible to prove whether or not there were two bullets.”

6. On November 28, 1978, towards the end of the HSCA, Burkley signed a sworn statement stating that he was interviewed by Mark Flanagan and Andy Purdy of the HSCA in January 1978. In this statement, he acknowledges “I supervised the autopsy and directed the fixation and retention of the brain for future study of the course of the bullet or bullets.” (I hope to find Flanagan and Purdy’s account of this interview in the future.)

7. In his book Reasonable Doubt, writer Henry Hurt claimed to have spoken to Burkley in 1982, and to have been told by Burkley that he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.

8. A January, 1997 memo by Doug Horne of the ARRB reflects that he contacted Burkley’s daughter and asked her to grant access to the files on her father kept by his former attorney, William Illig. It was hoped that these files would contain the information Mr. Illig had called Richard Sprague about almost twenty years earlier. She initially agreed, but by July, 1998, had changed her mind.

Nevertheless, by piecing together Burkley’s statements, we can approximate what he was thinking. Nowhere in his statements did he ever say the fatal bullet entered the back of Kennedy’s head. Consequently, when he mentioned a “previous bullet” to McHugh it’s possible he was referring to an earlier, less severe head wound. Since his placement of the back wound ruled out the single-bullet theory, and since he suspected two bullets struck Kennedy in the head, it’s quite possible he suspected Kennedy was killed in the manner here proposed.

A second witness of interest was Tom Robinson, who worked at Gawler’s Funeral Home. He helped clean up and reconstruct the President’s skull after the autopsy. While his recollections of many of the details of that night were foggy—some changed dramatically between his 1977 interview with the HSCA and his 1996 interview with the ARRB—he nevertheless made several relevant statements. He told the HSCA that “The inside of the skull was badly smashed,” that he remembered something about the bullet exiting from the throat, that the bullet “might have been coming from the head and down,” and that he remembers the doctors probing “at the base of the head,’ with an “18 inch piece of metal.” He told the ARRB, 19 years later that, “there were fractures all over the cranium, including the base of the skull,” and that he had “vivid recollections of a very long, malleable probe being used during the autopsy. His most vivid recollection of the probe is seeing it inserted near the base of the brain in the back of the head (after removal of the brain), and seeing the tip of the probe come out the tracheotomy incision in the anterior neck. He was adamant about this recollection. He also recalls seeing the wound high in the back probed unsuccessfully, meaning that the probe did not exit anywhere.” While some have sought to discredit Robinson’s statements by pointing out their inconsistencies, they can not be wholly discounted. His memories on some details have proved accurate. For instance, he told the ARRB that “he saw 2 or 3 small perforations or holes in the right cheek during embalming, when formaldehyde seeped through these small wounds and discoloration began to occur.” These wounds, not mentioned in the autopsy report, and rarely mentioned elsewhere, are indeed visible in the “stare of death” autopsy photo. While such wounds are in correlation with a bullet exploding near Kennedy’s temple while his head was leaning 25 degrees to its left, its difficult to see how they could be caused by a fragmenting bullet sailing upwards from his cranium, as proposed in Larry Sturdivan’s scenario.

Finally, there’s Richard Lipsey, who was a military aide to the general responsible for Kennedy’s funeral, General Wehle. Lipsey was ordered to keep an eye on the President’s body during the autopsy. Consequently he sat close by and tried to listen to what the doctors were saying. He prepared a face sheet for the HSCA staff depicting the President’s wounds as he remembered them being discussed. And they’re exactly as surmised in this presentation! In dismissing Lipsey’s account, the HSCA medical report said “Lipsey apparently formulated his conclusions based on observations and not on the conclusions of the doctors. In this regard, he believed the massive defect in the head represented an entrance and an exit when it was only an exit. He also concluded the entrance in the rear of the head corresponded to an exit in the neck. This conclusion could not have originated with the doctors because during the autopsy they believed the neck defect only represented a tracheostomy incision…Thus, although Lipsey’s recollection of the number of defects to the body and the corresponding locations are correct, his conclusions are wrong and are not supported by any other evidence.” How strange that the writers of this report represent these as Lipsey’s conclusions, when his testimony is clear that this is simply what he believes he overheard. If they believed him to be wrong then they should have just said he misunderstood the doctors. Instead the HSCA forensics panel, which concluded the Bethesda doctors were off by 4 inches on the head wound and at least 2 inches on the back wound, concluded that Lipsey was wrong because his testimony was in disagreement with the statements of these very same doctors, as these doctors are obviously beyond reproach from all sources except, of course, the HSCA forensics panel. The panel never even inquired with the Bethesda doctors if a shot connecting the wounds in the hairline and neck had ever been considered, and the possibility of such a trajectory is never even discussed in their report! They simply said Lipsey’s statements were not supported by any other evidence and left it at that.

Where on the autopsy photos does it show these small holes on JFK's cheek?

Does anybody know if the new book is worth it? Does Mark Shaw make good stuff, besides the Bible woo-woo?

Pat, do you think the wounds were probed as extensively as some other autopsy witnesses describe? Humes, Boswell, and Finck only said the back wound was probed, but it seems like the throat and eop wounds were probed. According to Lipsey and Robinson, a probe went from low in the back of the head (EOP?) and came out of the throat. Initially, I was wondering if the throat alteration theory could be explained by probing, but now it looks like that has no real evidence behind it. I think it still happened, just not that early.

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I vaguely recall someone on the forum saying that the tracheotomy incision was vertical. I replied by pointing out that the stare-of-death autopsy photo clearly shows the incision to be horizontal. IIRC the person did not defend what he'd said. If he read that somewhere, I wish he had defended it by referencing the source of that information. I'd like to see it.

For a long time many have said that the incision we see in the stare-of-death photo is significantly wider than the reported 2 to 3 cm. And only now it is being discovered that this was based on a fundamental misunderstanding the whole time?  I find that unsettling.

Hank Sienzant is the one that argued on another forum that the throat alteration theory was based on a simple misinterpretation of words (if we're going to rule out Crenshaw's account). I have no refutation. That may indeed be the case.

50 minutes ago, Robert Prudhomme said:

There is a great variety of tracheal incisions.

Considering that the trachea only has an inside diameter of 2.5 cm, and that Perry stated to Lifton he made an incision 2-3 cm. long, I would tend to think this was a vertical incision in the trachea itself he was describing.

Note, in second diagram, diameter of tracheostomy tube in relation to trachea; showing the obvious need to make a 2-3 cm. long incision in the trachea to accommodate insertion of the tracheostomy tube.

So.... the neck incision wasn't altered between Bethesda and the official start of the autopsy?

What's wrong with this? Why couldn't this have happened?

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/david-von-pein-vs-david-lifton.html

I remember Lifton stated in this Night Fright show that Connally being wounded in the shooting caused some kind of a "system overload" in the conspiracy. Does he still concede to this day that all shots came from the front, including Connally? He didn't really say on the show. I would think that the sole purpose of doing it like that would to avoid others being wounded in the shooting.