Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Content count

    2,238
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. 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
  2. Black Op Radio Tonight

    LBJ's War: Vietnam 50 Years Ago
  3. Here you go, Steve. I have no comment on the discussion, but I can offer to help with the image upload.
  4. Over the past few weeks I was in Australia visiting my daughter and granddaughter in Brisbane. Then I flew to Melbourne for about 5 days and visited with John Costella for part of that time. I'll leave the details out, but I seemed to recall that Craig has yet to offer any explanation for why the Stemmons Sign lacks pincushion distortion as seen in the Zapruder Film--when it MUST--if it is authentic? "Parallax" can't account for the obvious rotation (change in angle) of the sign post nor that of the edge of the right side of the sign--particularly when no such effect is present along the top edge of the sign. It took me a few weeks to answer your question, Craig (about parallel shadows on the moon). How many years has it been since these questions about the Stemmons Sign were first posed to you? To refresh your memory...here's a short YouTube that addresses the issue. The part that is most relevant to this topic starts at approximately the 6 minute point. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_KFnmPtsDw&feature=related
  5. Craig Lamson's "Stemmons Sign" Thread

    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.
  6. Lancer Archive Restoration

    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?
  7. PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

    I just published an article by my dear friend, Milicent Cranor, on my main website. As many of you know, Pat Speer has been critical of the work done by Dr's Mantik and Chesser. Please read this article and come to your own conclusions. ​PatSpeer.com: Fact Check
  8. Defending Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's email scandal this weekend, President Obama said to Chris Wallace [paraphrased]: "Well, there's 'classified' and then there's CLASSIFIED." -- The obvious implication being that there is some sort of distinction between two IDENTICAL words. It was reminiscent of Bill Clinton--when facing possible impeachment--famously saying: "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." I'll tell you what it is. It's all BS. What has happened to our country? The oligarchs are not hiding in plain sight, they're not hiding at all.
  9. The Men Who Killed Kennedy

    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.
  10. Stu Wexler

    Welcome, Stu!
  11. "Politics as usual" -- is unusual

    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.
  12. I have just published a new article by Cervantes [pen name] on my main website. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer: A Sorrowful Knight Errant in the Land of "Education"
  13. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Perhaps I should ask the moderators to change the title of this thread to: "The (JFK) Zapruder Windmills of Those Suffering from ADD."
  14. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee. The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens. I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want. Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.) Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think. As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements. And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it. This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service. This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did. The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board. I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255. Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be? Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards? P.S. Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum. I corrected my typo from Z-225 to Z-255 in the original post. Sorry for the confusion.
  15. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 255. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 255. It matches to a tee. The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens. I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.
  16. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Geez. I feel like I'm in a debate with Trump, Cruz, or Hillary! I will address each of your points above if / when you address the many red items in the article, which is the only subject that this thread is about.
  17. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    I most certainly can and I have! Guilt by association is not logical, but that has never stopped you before. Rather than address the many issues you are now engaged in yet another fallacy: Poisoning the Well. You may as well claim that: "Since Burnham once was associated with Fetzer, there is no need to consider his arguments, as they must be flawed." You have again succeeded in redirecting the topic away from your inability or unwillingness to address the issues.
  18. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Thank you to all who participated in this debate in good faith. To the rest...nothing.
  19. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    There we have it. A refusal to address those specific issues. You have something on your side, Pat. It's like what Allen Dulles allegedly said about fears that the problems in the Warren Report might one day be discovered. Paraphrased, he reportedly said: "Don't worry. Nobody reads." Indeed, you are safe.
  20. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Thanks, Jim. Now that we have that out of the way, back on topic. PS: Irrespective of Fetzer's many shortcomings and my nearly total disagreement with him on almost everything, I do think that the introduction was, in fact, very well written. Like I said earlier in this thread, authorship is not nearly as important as is content.
  21. The (JFK) Windmills of Pat Speer

    Nice try. First: Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Second, as Pat well knows, Fetzer and I had a major falling out many years ago. He is not my friend nor do I subscribe to his theories. These days he rarely, if ever, makes worthwhile contributions, but they are so few and far between that they are mostly non-existent. Michael, have you ever studied basic logic? If you have, then you already know that such an argument is not sound reasoning. Also see my post: Fetzer and Guilt by Association
×