Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Posts

    2,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. It is a derogatory remark in the US, too. It means relying only on the evidence that supports your preferred theory and concealing the evidence that does not support your theory. The implication is that you are aware of the "other cherries" but are deliberately omitting them.
  11. Surely there is a difference between the inadvertent and/or anomalous omission of a single piece of evidence vs. a pattern of intentionally omitting or distorting numerous items of relevant evidence that would tend to weaken one's argument, particularly after one has been informed of the omission or distortion. It is possible for a single (or very, very few) omission(s) to inadvertently occur innocuously. However, a pattern of Special Pleading becomes problematic from a "reasoning" standpoint. I am not here to judge one's motives for employing such a pattern of omission and distortion. However, such a pattern's fallacious nature undermines the strength of the arguments it has been advanced to promote.
  12. 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.
  13. The last I heard from Mike was when he introduced himself to me immediately following my presentation in Dallas for COPA on the 50th anniversary. Great guy. I hope he is doing well.
  14. Hi Paul, While it would take an article sized post for me to completely answer your question, let me simply speak to a few points. Accepting the notion that all shots originated from behind Kennedy is but the very first and most important step in concluding that Oswald could have possibly acted alone. Without that fundamental premise there is no "Oswald was the lone gunman" argument. Even though the lone gunman conclusion has been destroyed several times over in many different ways by many different persons, the fact that a concerted, well orchestrated, plan existed to fabricate evidence in support of that preordained conclusion is profound in the big scheme of things. For if the conclusion is false--that all shots originated from the rear--then the medical evidence was deliberately tampered with for the purpose of obstructing justice. It also strongly indicates how high up the military chain of command the "pre-planning of the cover-up" reached. If the military colluded in a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the murder investigation of its own Commander-in-Chief, such a scenario reveals a lot more to us about the nature and scope of this conspiracy. It eliminates "Plan B" suspects, such as, the mob, the anti-Castro Cubans, and many others who had no control over the military. Dealey Plaza was the setting chosen for an ambush in a military operation. Bethesda was the setting for the destruction and/or fabrication of evidence in deference to obstruction of justice pursuant to a military coup d' e`tat. How we view and approach the entire case should be significantly impacted by this information.
  15. I used to have a member on my forum who was a very nice person. Most of the time. Quite bright. Most of the time. Very patient. Most of the time. A fairly good enough communicator. Most of the time. But sometimes...not so much. Almost like he was a different person. As it turned out, he finally admitted that sometimes he'd post after he'd been drinking. It made him impatient, cloudy in his thinking, adamant that he was right, slightly paranoid, all the while isolating himself away from like-minded people who could have been his allies. But that was just him.
  16. No, but when one's ideas are so poorly communicated that they are confusing, disjointed, or too emotionally packed, they might tend to appear to be false, contrived, or ego-driven--even when they aren't.
  17. Millicent Cranor's response to Ollie Curme follows. ===================================== To Oliver D. Curme: Thank you for providing – in writing – your unique interpretation of my comments. This is useful to our research. The people I hear from say they have had no problem understanding what I wrote about Pat Speer and they say they find your reaction to it instructive. What I criticize: Speer’s deceptive methods – not his theories. This post contains only a small sampling of these methods. My position: Kennedy’s head wound was extensive, and included the top right, side, and back of the head, to an area just above the EOP. Basis for my position: Statements from qualified witnesses who saw the most. Speer’s position: The head wound was “primarily a temporal wound.” Basis for Speer’s position: ( a ) Suspect autopsy photographs and X-rays “authenticated” by a company closely associated with a suspect organization, the CIA; ( b ) misrepresented statements from the autopsy report; ( c ) statements from the least qualified witnesses who saw the least ( d ) misrepresented statements from the most qualified witnesses who saw the most. It would be pointless to discuss item ( a ). I have already commented on item ( b ) which you apparently did not understand, and so I will give you a sample from items ( c ) and ( d ): USES LEAST INFORMED WITNESSES Speer promotes the views of Kenneth Salyer, a Parkland doctor who recently claims, with great confidence, that the wound was confined to the right temple He wasn’t always so confident. (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve) Is Salyer qualified to say the wound was confined to the right temple only? Take a good look at his more candid remarks made under oath to the Warren Commission. How well did he see the wound? Notice all the qualifiers – other doctors were in the way, they were more close to JFK; he was on the left side -- not on the side of the wound; and he used the words “seemed to be” and “at least from the point of view that I could see him.” Asked what exactly he saw of the head wound, he said: "I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that—nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound—cranial wound.” (Vol 6 WCH, p 81) What was that point of view, and why was it so limiting? It is clear from his response to questions about the throat wound: “… I think there were a lot of people – a lot of doctors more closely around him… right after I arrived, Dr. Clark and Dr. Grossman also arrived” “There were a lot of doctors standing around and I didn’t really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.” Obviously, Kenneth Salyer is not qualified to comment on the full extent of the wound – but you would not learn that from Pat Speer. (Speer also quotes Elm Street witnesses, all of whom saw the more spectacular damage on the top right side of the head – but none of whom ruled out damage in the back. And they all hit the ground right after the head shots were fired, so they were hardly in a position to assess all the damage.) MISREPRESENTS MOST QUALIFIED PARKLAND DOCTOR William Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon, was the most qualified of the Parkland doctors, and he obtained the closest look at hole in JFK’s head. From his position behind JFK, he looked through the hole in the skull at the brain. Testifying on the brain damage, he mentioned occipital lobes, parietal lobes, and cerebellum. Clark also described where the large defect was in relation to the entrance wound, which he was told was just above the EOP and 2.5cm to the right of it. Clark said the larger wound was “above such a wound [the entrance] and lateral to it.” (Vol VI WCH, p.25) The following paragraph shows how Speer completely misconstrues Clark’s testimony. I’m reproducing it here intact, and comment on it further below. He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, 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. 1. “He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP…” Yes, but because the large wound was also “lateral to it” that means the lower part of it began at a level “just above” the EOP. In other words, LOW 2. “and more than an inch to its right.” Clark just said it was “lateral” to it – he did not describe the direction. This could mean either to the right -- or to the left of it (as long as it stayed on the right side of the skull). If the lower portion of the defect was a narrow area, it would have fit on either side of the alleged entrance wound. 3. “Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone.” Well above? Absolutely false. What is unclear is the upper border of the rim, not the lower border. 4. “Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." Once again, Speer omits an important qualifier; that the question was posed hypothetically and if Clark “assumed the additional facts I have brought to your attention.” 5. “When brought back four days later…[Clark said] the second bullet hit ‘the right side of his head’ and caused a ‘tangential’ wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, 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.” Top right side? Clark never said, nor implied, “top.” He never indicated where the upper border was, though, clearly he was aware that the defect included parietal bone. But Clark did indicate the lowest border was in an area “just above” the EOP. That is certainly low. Speer also implied Clark just couldn’t remember what he saw since he took no notes in the ER, that when he wrote his report, he somehow imagined the wound had included occipital bone, instead of occipital. I note that he does not question the memory of Kenneth Salyer, who neither took notes nor even saw the wound very well.
  18. Millicent Cranor's reply to Pat Speer: =========================== You must think your readers have the attention span of a flatworm, and will therefore not notice the extent of your scams. Let’s start with this one: PS: “And why has she chosen to cite some perceived inconsistency in my writings--where I fail to regurgitate every alternative viewpoint that I've previously rejected…” MC: By using the expression “alternative viewpoint”, you imply theories – which were clearly not what I was talking about. What you fail to include are relevant statements from the official record that contradict your interpretation of other statements from that very same record. It’s cherry picking. You are highly manipulative and untrustworthy for this reason. You know your arguments would not be very compelling if you laid out all the facts. This does not mean that I necessarily believe what is on record, but I try to quote it completely and accurately before arguing against it. I am the opposite of you. I believe in providing readers what they need to know in order to make up their own minds. For example, when I wrote about Kennedy’s throat wound, I expressed my opinion that it was probably an entrance. But I also provided references and photos proving that exit wounds can be small. So size is not a good enough reason to consider the wound an entrance. (I have better reasons.) Some people were not happy when I reported this, but I don’t believe in suppressing information. Here are a few more facts concerning wounds by jacketed bullets from centerfire rifles, facts that Lone Nutters try to suppress: ( a ) entrance wounds need not have abrasion collars, and ( b ) they need not be necessarily round and smooth. They can be somewhat jagged. PS: “I mean, really. It's not okay for me to write something on my website which leaves out HER argument.” MC: Again you try to give the impression I am talking about mere opinion, my “argument” – when I am clearly referring to your misleading reporting. PS: “… she STILL won't admit she thinks Mantik's conclusions are nonsense… So, let's keep this real simple. Was the Harper fragment occipital bone, Ms. Cranor, yes or no? MC: You can try to change the subject, but I won’t play. Right now, it is specimens from you that I am collecting. (And the person who wants them will have other scholars independently vet everything I write.) PS: “… she essentially agrees with me on a number of key points, and is only attacking me to win brownie points with some unnamed person.” MC: I believe in neither the Lifton Hole – nor the Speer Hole. I believe the strange large hole in Kennedy’s head was the result of two or three perforating shots. Cavitation explains only part of the damage. Exploding bone fragments cut scalp on the way out, etc. (Two of them were reported to have semi-circular notches on the periphery of each, indicative of the passage of a bullet. This is impossible to confirm.) MC: When you try to interpret Fisher and Spitz, you sound about as logical as Sarah Palin: PS: “Medicolegal Investigation of Death, by Fisher and Spitz, specifies that scalp is missing at entrance wounds but not at exits…..So … why the heck hasn't she pointed out that the absence of scalp and skull she finds so compelling, and seems to believe was on the back of the head was proof for an ENTRANCE on the back of the head, and NOT an exit.” MC: No one -- not even Spitz -- would consider the reported large defect an entrance wound! When I first read the nonsense you wrote about the large defect being an entrance, I thought maybe you were trying to be funny. But when I read your comment about what Clint Hill saw, I realized the joke is on you: PS: “…Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hmmm... This bone fragment, which had quite clearly been sprung from the large defect on the right side of Kennedy's head, had hair on it. This marked it as an entrance.” MC: I have often complained about that fragment being “cleaned” of clinging scalp before it was brought to the autopsy. The skin, often called “the body’s historian” could have told part of the story. And the length of hair could have helped orient it. But, never mind that. Back to you… Above you say the “absence of scalp and skull…was proof for an entrance.” Now you are saying the presence of scalp (with hair) is proof of an entrance? You’re calling a hairy bone fragment – the whole thing -- an entrance? Surely not. Maybe you’re just being sloppy. Maybe you’re trying to say the fragment contained a bullet hole? Even so, you are still not making sense. The scalp supporting the hair would have a hole in it – a round hole with NO hair or anything else. Obviously you have not grasped what Spitz was talking about, even though it is very basic: Why scalp is missing from bullet entrance wounds: the skin is crushed between bullet and bone and what’s left of it is carried into the wound along with a plug of bone. The amount of skin missing due to this process is very small -- about the size of the diameter of the bullet if it strikes nose-on, longer if hits on a tangent.
  19. Millicent Cranor responds to Pat Speer: ============================== PS: “Wow. Someone's having a meltdown.” MC: I’m just helping a psychologist who’s looking for specimens of disinformation. He plans to use these examples in a book he’s writing on cognitive processes. Someone alerted him to your website where he found certain typical patterns of deception, but he could not put his finger on the specifics since he doesn’t know the medical evidence. So he asked me to collect more specimens, and to explain them. It’s like sampling polluted water. I can only do so much at a time before the fumes get to me. This kind of work leaves me cold, way below melting temperature. PS: “It appears that Milicent has chosen to in interpret the autopsy protocol in a manner consistent with her favored scenario.” MC: No, that is what you do. I have no “favored scenario.” I just believe in providing relevant information to readers so that they can make up their own minds. PS: “…Which is pretty standard, I suppose. In particular, it seems that she has chosen to believe that the wound stretching "somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" is the wound described by the Parkland witnesses, a wound primarily on the back of the head. Well, I reject this for a number of reasons. 1) The use of the word "somewhat" suggests to me that this wound barely extended beyond the parietal area.” MC: This is probably what Humes hoped people would think. As I have written elsewhere, he was often vague when it came to reporting information that could contradict the desired conclusions. He used elastic language when describing the location of the back wound, and he feigned ignorance of a bullet wound in the throat on the night of the autopsy. In any case, no matter what a word “suggests” to you, you should never filter it out. You should report all relevant statements, and only then give your opinion. PS: “2. The use of the term "regions" as opposed to bones. It is my understanding that doctors will call the back of the head (yes, even the top of the back of the head--which is the parietal bone) "the occipital region" and that they will similarly call the side of the head by the ear "the temporal region". Well, this suggests to me that the wound was centered on the top right side of the head, and not the far back of the head.” MC: Regardless of your “understanding” – you should still report all relevant statements. PS: “3. The scalp lacerations from this defect didn't stretch to the far back of the head.” MC: That is irrelevant. What you left out is quite relevant: “In this region [parietal somewhat into temporal and occipital] there is an actual absence of scalp and bone… PS: “4. We have no reason for believing the large head wound was measured prior to the scalp being reflected, and skull falling to the table. And yes, I know, the protocol says there was an actual absence of scalp and bone. But it doesn't specify that this bone was missing at the beginning of the autopsy.” MC: Again, you should have reported these critical statements. Their wording indicated the scalp and bone were missing at the beginning. And where would you fit those three late-arriving bone fragments – including one that was 10 cm long, but not including the Harper fragment, which wasn’t turned in that night at all. Prior to exploration that caused additional bone fragmentation, the hole had to be large enough to fit those late-arriving fragments. Even then, they said, there still wasn’t quite enough bone to fill the hole. But maybe you’re right. Maybe there was only a small hole on top – and those bone fragments belong to someone else. But what about the “complete absence of scalp?” Is it your theory that scalp also fell to the table? Or do you believe that when the doctors said there was “a complete absence of scalp” they forgot they had it in their hands? Thank you for this new collection of specimens.
  20. Scott, You post opinions as if they are facts, but when challenged to provide evidentiary support or even proof for your claims, you take offense, become increasingly sarcastic and often condescending--as if you have any reason to assume such a posture. Far from it. I find much in your postings to be rather shallow. I wasn't going to mention it, except that you are now acting superior to several respected members who have done a lot of work on this subject--much of which probably occurred before anyone ever even heard of you.
  21. Greg, Thanks for the thorough response. I've read so many contradictory stories that my memory is muddled regarding the following... Did Bundy actually cancel the dawn raid outright or did he require a successful beachhead prior to allowing the B-26 attack? Did Arleigh Burke order Essex with its sanitized A-4D Skyhawks on station on his own initiative? Tom, The answer to your first question isn't as straight forward as one might expect. The air strikes were both canceled and delayed. Here's what I mean: The B-26's did in fact arrive, but they had been delayed far too long to have accomplished the goal of destroying Castro's planes on the ground. So in terms of "pre-dawn" and "pre-Brigade-landing" air strikes...they were canceled. But since they were eventually allowed to go, they were "delayed" rather than canceled. Adlai Stevenson's argument was indeed that an airstrip needed to be secured in order to promote the notion that the airstrikes originated from within Cuba. Thus the reason to delay their arrival until after a "minimum" amount of real estate could be held. He did not grasp the idea that the Brigade would be unable to capture and hold any territory if Castro controlled the air. However, by the time the 16 B-26's arrived, Castro's air force was alerted to the Brigade's having landed on the beach and were airborne. All 16 of the rebel planes were shot down. If memory serves, 14 were downed by T-33 jets, 1 by a Sea Fury, and one by triple A. The answer to your second question is very elusive. I do not know the answer definitively. However, I suspect that it was part of the "support" forces that were ready to go if--and only if--the Brigade succeeded in accomplishing the minimum requirements to obtain recognition as an interim government from a member of the UN Security Council. Had that occurred the US could have supported the new government legally.
×
×
  • Create New...