Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Content Count

    2,241
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. Science stands on its own merit irrespective of authorship, literary devices employed to express it, and the like. Let's stay on topic by discussing the evidence presented.
  2. 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"
  3. Cyber Czar: "NSA could crack San Bernardino terrorist's phone already..." -- "FBI is merely seeking to set precedent." [paraphrased]
  4. Stay tuned...more to come. Note: Speer did not post a "photo" of the occipital interior surface. Rather, it appears to be an artist's rendering. It's called an anatomy drawing, Greg. Artists rendition--anatomical drawing--whatever you choose to call it is irrelevant for the sake of this point. The point is that it is not a "photo" as Sandy mistakenly referred to it.
  5. Stay tuned...more to come. Note: Speer did not post a "photo" of the occipital interior surface. Rather, it appears to be an artist's rendering.
  6. From Dr. Michael Chesser: My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions: 1. There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment. 2. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction. 3. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region. 4. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik's OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone. 5. I agree with Dr. Mantik's placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don't believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment's localization to this area. 6. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp. ================================== Also see Dr. Chesser's article: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs
  7. Scott, You have demonstrated a lack of willingness to expand your view of the world even when you encounter new (to you) evidence. You appear to make your mind up first and then ignore any evidence that tends to refute it. Mansfield was not JFK's chief military advisor...not by a long shot. Did he have influence? Yes. Was he instrumental? Probably. Was he integral to this decision making process? No.
  8. I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961. It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them? Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he? In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton? Introduction to NSAM 263 [JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy] Introduction to NSAM 273 [LBJ's Reversal of NSAM 263] Greg, you really have a pretty sight, I bet you've spent a lot of time working on it, and thanks for backing up the NSAM withdraw policy I was discussing in post #57 which was based off Senator Mansfield's report. It was not based off Senator Mansfield's report at all! It was officially the result of the McNamara / Taylor Trip Report. [Yes, that is Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Maxwell Taylor]. NSAM 263 even INCLUDES the precise section of their report--as the ONLY portion--that was approved by the president and which recommended the withdrawal of 1,000 personnel by the end of 1963 and all remaining personnel by the end of 1965! JFK was never--I repeat NEVER--in favor of American intervention in Indochina. Going back to his days in the House of Representatives and later to his days in the Senate, JFK consistently and vocally opposed American involvement in Vietnam. He gave an impassioned speech to the US Senate to that effect way back in 1954; a speech that described his position unequivocally. On September 6th of 1963 he tasked Foreign Service Officer Mendenhall and General Victor "Brute" Krulak to go on a fact finding tour of Vietnam and make their recommendation. They came to nearly opposite conclusions, with Mendenhall advising that the war effort was failing and Krulak insisting that the war effort, particularly the strength of the anti-Communist forces, was going well--so well, in fact, that Krulak advised that our withdrawal would have a positive effect on the GOV of SVN. JFK had made his mind up BEFORE he took office that extricating the US from Vietnam (without appearing to be soft on communism) was essential. That is why he disregarded Mendenhall's recommendation and embraced Krulak's instead. Such an approach would have allowed him to "claim victory" and bring our boys home had he lived. After he decided on complete withdrawal by the end of 1965, JFK knew that he would need the "recommendation to withdraw" to appear to have its genesis in the top ranking US military establishment or else he would look soft on communism. Thus he had Krulak and Prouty write the content of the subsequent "McNamara / Taylor Trip Report." It was THAT report that "officially" contained the "military's own recommendation" to withdraw. Please read this JFK speech (mentioned above) and decide for yourself if he was firmly committed to keeping the US out of a ground war in Asia.
  9. I've already done this. The "original" story about Galbraith going to Vietnam in 1961 came from James K. Galbraith himself. At that time Kennedy was already dealing with the Bay of Pigs. He, (Kennedy) DID NOT INVOLVE himself as much in the Vietnam war as he did with Cuba in 1961. It was during this year of 1961 the administration was also sending "millions" of dollars to president Diem, had Kennedy sent Galbraith to Vietnam why then is there no mentioned of that in the minutes? Secondly, if Galbraith [had] gone to Vietnam, why then did he not report what Mansfield obviously saw what president Diem was doing with the money the United States was giving them? Just because of a few books that contradict themselves, don't know whether Galbraith is coming or going never left India. He did "observe" the war from afar, and wrote Kennedy how he felt about the war, that's it, that's as far as it went. History has this all wrong, after Kennedy received Galbraith's "letter" it was still a few months before Kennedy sent Mansfield to Vietnam to find out what's going on, surely, the president wouldn't need a second opinion about money being squandered in Vietnam would he? In closing, if you Mr. Burton read my number #48 post to Mrs. Beckett you would have [understood what I said to her, which should have helped in making up your mind,] with that I said, I did say, "it wouldn't happen again", your follow up posts only tells me that one, you read my post but didn't understand it, or two, you read my post, understood it, but, couldn't make up your mind. Which is it Mr. Burton? Introduction to NSAM 263 [JFK's Vietnam Withdrawal Policy] Introduction to NSAM 273 [LBJ's Reversal of NSAM 263]
  10. Another thread fatally infected by the musings of the disinformed.
  11. In which country did you live from the 60's through the 80's? If it was the USA, are you speaking from first hand experience as either a perpetrator or a witness to such crimes? That would seem to be the only way that you could state the above so authoritatively. If this was "the norm" in your world, I certainly hope that: If you were the perp, you turned yourself in, paid your debt to society, and made amends to those you abused If you were the perp, you've since gotten help so that you have now discontinued such reprehensible behavior If you were not the perp, I hope you came to the defense of the women you witnessed suffering abuse and you reported the crimes to the proper authorities
  12. If I had started a thread topic titled: The Head Wound(s) -- then the posts directly related to that general subject would be on topic. If someone started inserting "Pat Speer Fact Check" posts into that thread -- those would be off topic. So too in this thread is general discussion about the head wound(s) off topic. Only as to how they may relate to the fact checking are they relevant. Please do not derail this thread on the grounds that general information about the head wound(s) is/are part of the topic.
  13. Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C. Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established. Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere). This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence." Greg, I know you want to keep this thread focused on attacking Pat Speer by arguing that he used witness testimony that you and Millicent don't think is reliable, but that's not what Jon asked. Jon was asking about our knowledge of JKF's wounds. And to completely dismiss the autopsy report and photos and X-rays when trying to understand JFK's wounds is ridiculous. In Ms. Cranor's article, The Third Wound, she relies heavily on her and others' interpretation of the mystery photo and the Back of Head photo and the X-rays to present her hypothesis that JKF had suffered a bullet wound to the head and another which linked his anterior throat wound to the rear head or high neck. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; use a little judgement in evaluating evidence in order to assess what is probably real and what has been falsified. We are not attacking Pat Speer. This is an evaluation and/or criticism of his methodology, arguments, and ultimately, conclusions.
  14. Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C. Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established. Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere). This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence."
  15. I started this topic so I know what it is about. It is a topic dedicated to FACT CHECKING the premises upon which Pat Speer has based his conclusions as evidenced by the title of the thread. You are free to start a new topic discussing his "theories" if you wish. However, I am not one who is inclined to promote any "theory" at all -- and I am certainly not willing to allow you or anyone else to steer this thread from its original purpose. By my account you've "fact checked" three of Mr. Speer's assertions which were found on a web site with over 1 million words (3500 equivalent book pages). If you don't want to be accused of "cherry picking", you've got a lot more "facts" to check. Indeed, as I already indicated several times in posts above, stay tuned for Part 2 and Part 3.
  16. I started this topic so I know what it is about. It is a topic dedicated to FACT CHECKING the premises upon which Pat Speer has based his conclusions as evidenced by the title of the thread. You are free to start a new topic discussing his "theories" if you wish. However, I am not one who is inclined to promote any "theory" at all -- and I am certainly not willing to allow you or anyone else to steer this thread from its original purpose.
  17. Followed up by the predictable Straw Man. Definition of Straw Man: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated. OK, Greg. Go ahead and knock down that argument. Followed up by the predictable dripping sarcasm in lieu of substantive offerings.
  18. Here is a reply to Pat Speer from Millicent Cranor: ====================================== Pat Speer has been busy hawking his own dubious wares as well as those of a notorious dis-informant. I shall respond briefly. SPEER: “In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. CRANOR: John K. Lattimer, MD ingratiated himself with the Powers That Be by writing informercials for the Warren Commission -- rather trashy articles based on pseudoscience that appeared in journals with low standards, or in the "Historical" sections of the better journals. (These sections bypassed peer review.). For just a few simple but striking examples, please see my article, Big Lie About a Small Wound. (It concerned Governor Connally’s back wound.) Now, let’s see what -- according to Speer -- Kemp Clark is supposed to have said to Lattimer about an “innocent” explanation for Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement as observed on the Zapruder film. What did Clark say publicly – that we can confirm? And why doesn't Speer provide a reference? From Lattimer’s article in Resident and Staff Physician, May 1972 issue: “Some other explanation seemed more likely for the President’s major sideways lurch to the left, with its slight backwards component. It seemed to the author [Lattimer], after consultation with neurosurgeon Kemp Clark, who had declared the President dead, that the prime speculative possibility would be the opisthotonos-like reaction of the body, often seem immediately after acute, severe cerebral injuries, because of the massive downward discharge of nerve impulses.” Can you see what’s wrong with the above statement? He is not quoting Clark. Nor does he even paraphrase Clark as having said any such thing. All he does is hint! “It seemed to the author (himself), after consultation with…” So the reader is supposed to think Clark said it. Don’t you think if Clark said any such thing, Lattimer would have quoted him directly? And what about all the other neurosurgeons and neurologists at Lattimer’s disposal in the New York area and beyond? Why do you suppose he could not find a single specialist on the subject to give him the quote he wanted? *** And here again (below) is Speer trying to twist Kemp Clark’s words so they appear to limit the head wound to the “top” right side: SPEER: “…while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.” CRANOR: The choice is not top versus back – the wound extended from the top to the back on the right side, according to Clark (and others). The lowest border of the defect was as low as a point “just above” the EOP. Clark did say part of the wound was lateral to the entrance. Do the following passages suggest Clark said the wound was “at the top right side of the head”? “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.” Vol 6 WCH, pg. 20 “…the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance.” Vol 6 WCH, pg. 26 When Pat Speer talks about a “closer look” at anything – why not use your own eyes? And since Speer rarely seems to provide references and links so that you can use your own eyes, here’s a good place to start: History Matters
  19. Why resort to speculation as to the purpose of alleged shots from the grassy knoll and/or storm drain? That is entirely off topic. We have evidence that either supports, refutes, or is neutral with respect to various conclusions as to the points of origin of the shots responsible for the President's wounds. In this instance, there is compelling evidence that shots originating from both the front and the rear of Kennedy struck their target. When a researcher disregards, misrepresents, omits, or distorts evidence--including witness testimony--that does not conform to his or her pet theory it is intellectually dishonest AT BEST. In response to the following question elsewhere in the thread: "Does Pat Speer cherry-pick witness testimony?" -- You began your reply with: "Well, who doesn't [cherry pick witness testimony]?" I am appalled by your response on several levels. First, while it would be disingenuous for me or anyone to deny that each of us carries some amount of bias, it is also important to note that an honest broker recognizes this potential bias in themselves, rejects it rather than embraces it, and fights to resist it interfering with their pursuit of the truth. Second, while it would be entirely appropriate for me to object to your position regarding "cherry picking" evidence on purely moral and ethical grounds, I prefer to take a more dispassionate approach. Namely, "cherry picking" is a logical fallacy known as Special Pleading, and is therefore not sound reasoning. Third, your having correctly identified and admitted that Pat Speer is guilty of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, colloquially also known as "cherry picking," is, at the very least, instructive as to how we should judge the soundness of his arguments and/or the reliability of his conclusions. Greg, I'm sure that I'm guilty of cherry picking, but as JFK once said, "You're in there with me." Let’s just take your sentence above: “Why resort to speculation as to the purpose of alleged shots from the grassy knoll and/or storm drain? That is entirely off topic.” I don’t think it is off topic at all. You started this thread called “PatSpeer.com: Fact Check”. Mr. Speer’s web site examines the medical evidence and offers a reconciliation between his interpretation of the medical evidence and two head shots from behind. If you choose to interpret the medical evidence without including any possible trajectory information you’re cherry picking facts: looking at the medical evidence in isolation and ignoring a lot of important facts. That’s cherry picking. You say above that shots from both the front and rear of Kennedy struck their target. Well, why not a shot from the fence corner of the grassy knoll, near Badgeman location? I think I know why you might choose to ignore that inconvenient evidence: because it’s not a shot from the front or the rear but 90 degrees perpendicular: direct to the side of his head. If you look at Z312, a shot from that location into the front of JFK’s head would likely go straight through and hit Jackie. But why not a tangential shot from the fence corner that hits the right occipital parietal area of JFK’s head? That explains almost all of Dr. Clark’s testimony: occipital, parietal AND tangential wound! I bet you still don’t like it. Why? Because you seem to believe that JFK was shot from the front. Now why would you believe that? Perhaps because of JFK’s back and to the left motion in the Zapruder film? I’ll grant you that’s convincing, but do you believe the Z film is entirely authentic? I’ve heard many people who believe a black matte was inserted to hide the blow out, and frames were excised to hide the rearward travel of brain matter. But if you believe the back and to the left is real, but not other aspects of the Z film, you’re cherry picking evidence within the Z film. How can you state that JFK received shots from the front, but then say that trajectories from the storm drain are off topic? They’re not off topic and I’ll tell you why: it’s very hard to make that shot from the front. I really hope you don’t believe Greer shot JFK in the head. Do you? If Greer didn’t shoot him, where did the shot come from? If you believe the throat wound came from a bullet which passed through the windshield, then where did a frontal head shot come from? Not through the exact same windshield hole, I hope? And there is no evidence I’ve seen for two holes through the windshield. So we could try over the windshield, but the chrome divider bar between the driver and passenger cabin is in the way. We could try a sort of side frontal shot, but Kellerman and Connolly are in the way on the right front and Greer, Ms. Connolly and Jackie block a shot from the left front. If you can’t find a reasonable trajectory then your whole hypothesis of a frontal shot goes down the tubes. Take a look at Don Roberdeau’s excellent trajectory maps: http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/1975/03/4-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination.html Here’s another important piece of evidence that you ignore with your frontal shot: CE 567, the nose bullet fragment allegedly found in the front compartment of the limo was tested and found to have human skin tissue on it: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=928&relPageId=9&search=CE_567%20human%20skin%20tissue Many people think that CE 567 and CE 569 are the remains of a bullet which hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror. So how could they have gotten skin on them? Well, here are three hypotheses: 1) The bullet was fired from behind, richocheted off the top right side of JFK’s head and then hit the chrome strip. This, I believe is Pat Speer’s hypothesis. 2) The bullet was fired from behind and ricocheted off the top of a seat. Less likely to have a richochet off a soft seat. 3) The FBI planted evidence. Now the FBI (or Secret Service) planting evidence is a common device used to get rid of the evidence you don’t want to cherry pick. If it is inconvenient, just say it’s faked or planted. I don’t doubt they faked or planted evidence, but I think an over reliance of fakery to explain away conflicting data is lazy and sloppy. Occam’s razor with a clever explanation that fits the facts without blaming it on the government is a better explanation in my opinion. And I think that Pat Speer has done that with a detailed hypothesis that explains the head wounds and CE 567 without resorting to handwaving: “The bullet came from somewhere.” And there it is: The predictable derailing of the thread.
×
×
  • Create New...