Bernice Moore passed away several years ago. We should also include Adele Edison on the list, as well as my dear friend, Noel Twyman (Bloody Treason).

.

One big difference between you and David is this: When David makes a mistake he admits it. For some reason you keep harping on the same error, that he already acknowledged, as if he was supposed to be 100% infallible 100% of the time. Now, back to the matter at hand. Please show your work. Ya know, that pesky math stuff. Specifically could you show your optical densitometry readings for comparison purposes?

So, Pat, rather than accuse me of ganging up on you, please provide the hard DATA that you used to determine that Mantik and Chesser are wrong. You changed the subject. I will consider your failure to post this information as proof that you do not have any supporting data to post.

I would like for Pat Speer to pretend he is in grammar school, or high school, or college…and abide by the minimal standard of proof one learns at such institutions, namely: an assertion is unsupported unless measurable evidence of its validity is supplied.

Pat Speer has not now—nor has he ever in the more than 15 years I have known of him—supplied any quantitative data to support his claim that Mantik, and now Chesser too, are wrong.

Mantik and Chesser published the quantitative (measurable) data that they have relied upon to reach their conclusions. Pat Speer has not published any quantitative data to support his claim that they are mistaken. He just repeats and reposts pseudo-refutations that bear no actual substance. Moreover, no other researchers can “test” Speer's hypotheses (that alleges to refute Mantik) because he has not published the data for all to see.

Could it be that he has no data? If he does have the data to support his conclusions, why hide it? And if he has no data, why are we even entertaining this absurdity?

So, I challenge you, Pat: Publish the HARD quantitative data that you relied upon to reach your “scientific” conclusion that Mantik and Chesser are mistaken. After all, they published theirs.

See: https://assassinationofjfk.net/a-review-of-the-jfk-cranial-x-rays-and-photographs/  by Michael Chesser, MD

It's hard to believe that this episode was first aired 20 years ago as of last month! Indeed, in my interview, I even referenced “if they’re still covering it up in 20 years…” and now, here we are.

Nothing has changed.

A pity.

RIP to my dear friend, Noel Twyman, who passed away nearly a year ago on January 14, 2022. His outstanding contributions to the JFK case memorialized in his book, Bloody Treason, will remain etched in the annals of history long after we are all gone.

I have been in contact with David fairly regularly and he seemed fine last time we spoke. He has not mentioned any health issues. I tried calling him a few minutes ago and there was no answer, will try again later. Last I spoke to him, I was under the impression he still lives in Los Angeles area, not Las Vegas.

The presenters were, in order of appearance, Noel Twyman, David Mantik, Jim Fetzer, and Greg Burnham (also the moderator).

It was held in a public theater and was open to everyone. We charged a $10 admission/donation and had about 200 attendees. The event was originated

by David Mollering who first recruited me to help him organize and plan it. David created large posters for the event and laminated four of them for the

presenters to have one each as mementos.  

How time has flown!

Now I remember why I stopped posting here.

Merit Based Immigration. Strong support for 2nd Amendment. Life Membership in the NRA. Extreme vetting for asylum seekers. Seeking peace with Cuba then, North Korea now. Planning to withdraw from Vietnam, promising to withdraw from "endless wars." Both campaigned on strengthening the military and both did just that. Both slashed CORPORATE as well as individual taxes dramatically. Similar policies, very different styles. The claim that there exists ZERO comparisons between the two is demonstrably false no matter how much you may hate Donald Trump.

David Middleton sent out an email referencing a Change.org petition in which he speaks of the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty's role --"Man X"-- played by Donald Sutherland in the movie, JFK. He erroneously says that Colonel Prouty was a STATE Department employee. Colonel L Fletcher Prouty was NOT an employee of the State Department!

He was a full bird Colonel in the USAF, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of DEFENSE. He also worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Military Liaison Officer in support of Global Intelligence Operations.

On 2/26/2017 at 2:12 PM, Michael Clark said:

One thing I would like to verify is if McGeorge Bundy can be fairly blamed for the call to not hit the last three Cuban jets until an airstrip was captured. Is he a fall guy for JFK? Would he or could he have made that call on a critical departure from the plan?

Cheers,

Michael

Yes, he can. He even tendered his resignation to JFK following his failure. JFK did not accept it. Also see my "essay in progress": Fiasco

I don't know what Jim is talking about here. I do not agree with Jim or Larry on this matter. Fletch was there.

Greg Burnham Discusses The Bay of Pigs Fiasco with Len Osanic in 4 Parts

FYI: This debate was at a time that preceded efficient web streaming. So this is the only portion that was able to be preserved as there were extremely long gaps in it due to buffering, etc. I wish I had the rest of it, but alas...

I beat him in a debate and Marquette beat him in court!

Judge backs Marquette University's suspension of professor John McAdams over blog post

LBJ's War: Vietnam 50 Years Ago

Here you go, Steve. I have no comment on the discussion, but I can offer to help with the image upload.

Summarizing: Intentionally flawed or not, Lamson's example is not an adequate representation of the "leaning" Stemmons sign post. The "leaning" sign post cannot be explained by parallax.

Using this logic, shouldn't you prevent non-members from reading the Education Forum's posts, as well, else you'll risk being hacked here, too?

This is a MEDICAL EVIDENCE thread.

Although I am admittedly biased, (since I participated in The Guilty Men episode in which I and some of my research were featured) I too believe that the series contributed a lot to help the public's understanding of the case. There were many more pluses than minuses. I found Nigel Turner to be not only gracious, but thorough. He displayed a considerable amount of courage in producing the series as a whole, but especially, The Guilty Men episode.

Was it perfect? No. Did it achieve what we were hoping to accomplish over all? Yes. It got people exposed to a lot of evidence of which they would not have been aware had the series not been produced. It got people asking the right questions and thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting the impossible LN narrative.

Welcome, Stu!

Deleted

The obvious implication being there are different levels of classified. Geez! Was that too hard to figure out?

For those who have actually had a security clearance, your above comment speaks to your lack of experience.

There is CLASSIFIED

There is TOP SECRET

There is NOFORN

There is EYES ONLY

[etc]

FYI: Obama went on to further say: "There's 'top secret' and then there's TOP SECRET."

No, Mr President. There are documents that are CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are not CLASSIFIED.

There are documents that are "simply" CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are CLASSIFIED as:

TOP SECRET or EYES ONLY or NOFORN (aka: No Foreign Dissemination) and so forth.

Yes, Len, it is what it is.