• 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

Scott Tame

Members
  • Content count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Scott Tame

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,265 profile views
  1. Jim, doesn't Mr. Newman address some of the suppression tactics in the appendix of the 2017 edition of JFK and Vietnam?
  2. Phillips was referring to the Soviet Embassy in "Plausible Denial". In "Last Word", Lane has him claiming he was never in Mexico City. Assuming the above quote is accurate.
  3. Michael and Jim http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15699&page=6 In post #87 of the above thread, Michael Hogan posts a quote from "Last Word" which may be the remark you are referring to. I think the episode from the debate was mentioned in "Plausible Denial".
  4. Didn't David Phillips make a statement to Mark Lane during a debate about there being no evidence that Oswald was at the Embassy?
  5. The reason the first one is posted is because Mr.Gaal couldn't find it because we were given the wrong document number.
  6. Hate to inform you that he let you down. There's nothing there.
  7. The 1:43 memo is actually 62 109060-58 and also contains nothing about a "lone shooter." "I instructed Mr. Shanklin to go all out on this and find out who did it."- JEH http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=56&tab=page
  8. Larry & Tom, I vaguely remember reading that they were executives for Bulova watch co.
  9. And yet, Mr. Joseph's, it's you who has been presenting "your impressions" of "64th generation internet images" to claim that the right front of the head is missing. I think I'll take the word of a radiologist who has examined the actual x-rays over your "impressions". You mean like your opinion that the photos and x-rays are of a reconstructed head? Again, I cannot wait for you to explain who reconstructed the head and how they were able to eliminate the area of missing scalp in the back of the head when the morticians were unable to do it!
  10. Not really sure what Mr. Joseph's is referring to here since Dr. Mantik says nothing about the right front of the head missing. Would love to see the people claiming that the head was reconstructed explain who did it and how they were able to create an intact back of the head when the guys who do it for a living couldn't even do it!
  11. Well, folks, it appears that Dave is back from his insult laden hissy fit! Very mature Mr. Joseph's! And he accuses me of being a five year old. How rich! I find it amusing that someone who has been belligerent on two different threads here accuses me of being argumentative. I'll let you be the judge. It's also comical that someone who was forced to concede that two of his so called 8:00 witnesses described a wound in the back of the head like the Parkland witnesses, despite his claims to the contrary, makes the following statement: "Be espcially nice if you actually came here and attempted to prove something..." You can add to that list Godfrey McHugh, William Greer, Roy Kellerman and James Metzler. Now let's get on to the photos and x-rays. To support my assertion of alteration I will direct you to this study by David W. Mantik. http://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf I will post some relevant quotes from this study below. "I examined the JFK autopsy materials at the National Archives (NARA) on four separate days in 1993, on two days in 1994, and on two days in 1995. This review included the photographs, X-rays, clothing, magic bullet, and two metal fragments removed from the skull." "Shortly after the autopsy, a large white (i.e., relatively transparent) patch was superimposed (in the darkroom—not on a physical skull) over the posterior portion of both lateral skull X-rays during the production of altered copies. These are now part of the official collection at NARA. This left unaltered a large, dark area at the front of the skull, which made it appear that a posterior bullet had blown out the front. Even Humes, during his ARRB deposition, repeatedly expressed his bewilderment at this dark area, most likely because the white patch subconsciously confused him. An obvious corollary to this conclusion is that both original, lateral skull X-rays have vanished—without a trace." "Shortly after the autopsy--by using a simple, double exposure technique in the dark room—a 6.5 mm, metal-like object was superimposed over an authentic, but smaller, metal fragment (within the right orbit) on the original, frontal X-ray during the production of a copy film. This is now part of the official collection. The evidence for this conclusion derives from eight separate lines of evidence, most based on optical density (OD) measurements of the X-rays. During their ARRB depositions, the autopsy pathologists did not recall seeing this object on 22 November 1963—nor for that matter did anyone else (including the radiologist). This X-ray forgery was done with a single purpose: to incriminate Oswald via the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano carbine. Within the past several years, Larry Sturdivan, the ballistics expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), has also stated his absolute conviction that this 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. This new interpretation of the 6.5 mm object (as an irrelevant artifact) totally contradicts the Clark Panel (1968) and the HSCA (1978), both of whom interpreted this object as an authentic bullet fragment. Even more to the point, this object played a crucial role in their conclusions—which have now been thoroughly undermined. The extant frontal X-ray, therefore, also cannot be an original but must be a copy. The original has vanished without a trace. Therefore, no original unaltered skull X-ray remains." "Based on 3D viewing of the autopsy photographs with a large format stereo viewer, the scalp hair on the posterior head photographs (b & w # 15, 16 and color # 42, 43) appears starched and flat, i.e., not naturally 3D." "No matter how the stereo viewer is employed, the upper scalp hair on the posterior head photographs looks starched and flat, i.e., two-dimensional. This is how two precisely identical photographs appear when viewed in stereo. In a bizarre image over the left top of the head, the hair extends well out into space, looking as if it had been glued into position. When the paired photographs are reversed (left for right), or even when they are each rotated by ninety degrees, this odd appearance of the hair persists. This is true both of the color transparencies and of the color prints. Such a 2D effect would occur if the same photograph (of extraneous hair) had been inserted (as in a soft matte technique) into two slightly different views of the same pose. This conclusion that the upper scalp hair (just where there should be a large hole, according to the score or more of witnesses assembled by Gary Aguilar, M.D.) forms an unnatural 2D image in the stereo viewer is strikingly at odds with the HSCA, which implied that the stereo images appeared normally 3D. By contrast, stereo viewing of the hair on other photographic pairs in the autopsy collection seems normal."
  12. Hi Robert, Yes I do agree with the Parkland observations regarding a wound in the back of the head. I don't believe that all these people could make the same wrong description. Besides, their observations are supported by a majority of the Bethesda witnesses who also describe a wound in the back of the head. Where Mr. Josephs and I part ways is that I believe the photos and x-rays are forgeries and he believes the wounds have been altered. Now, I don't have a problem with anyone who doesn't believe what I do. People are free to come to their own conclusions. What I do have a problem with are people who get belligerent and condescending when you don't accept their theories. If you have to resort to name calling, it's usually because you don't have an intelligent rebuttal. Now concerning a certain hockey bet. Do we really have to take Beiber? Take care, Scott
  13. I apologize, Ray. I see how that might confuse you. Let me fix that: he says his parents saw Jackie, but is unclear whether he believes she was there.
  14. I said that MacDonald said? I think you better go back and reread that. So by saying his parents saw her he's claiming she wasn't there? Trying to distract peole from the fact that Dave finally had to concede that "post 8;00" witnesses saw the same wound as Parkland?
  15. Name calling in addition to the shouting and hand waving. More classic Cinque!