Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. It is very obvious that you have not read David's e-book or you are ignoring those sections for which you have no answer.
  2. Thank you Doctor Speer. I will consult you the next time I need a possible bone fracture diagnosed.
  3. Me too, Evan. One of my favorite stand-up routines of all time was his HBO Special: Cosby Himself. He just sat up there on a simple metal chair, like the type you'd see in an auditorium, with a microphone in his hand. No other props. And he talked about simple life events, like having and raising kids, what parents deal with, the dentist's office...just regular stuff. But it was brilliant in its levity and simplicity. Now his light don't shine so bright after all. A pity. Yet sometimes a famous and beloved celebrity's fall from grace can distract us from the horror caused to those who were abused. He is not the harmed party here nor are we. The women are the victims. I don't know exactly what justice for them looks like, but I sure hope they get it. And peace.
  4. Bill Cosby Charged with Crime in Philadelphia for sexual assault. Unlike the civil lawsuits that he has settled out of court in the past, Cosby will not be able to throw money at the accusation to make it go away. These charges are criminal and will be settled in a courtroom by a jury. Cosby claimed the 2005 incident, which in 2006 was settled during a civil suit, was innocuous and that his accuser consented to the act by failing to object or stop him--even though he admitted to having given her pills and wine before fondling her. His accuser said then--and maintains today--that she was incapable of fighting him off as she was slipping in and out of consciousness. Shortly thereafter she went to the police but the then DA refused to press criminal charges for "lack of evidence." Philadelphia has a new DA that reviewed the case including testimony and evidence gleaned from the civil suit settlement and filed charges. Why the change? Well, one must consider the likelihood that this woman would have consented to sexual advances from a man--any man--if she had not been drugged. The victim is a gay female who was in a relationship with a female at the time of the incident.
  5. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about as evidenced by your lack of cogent replies. You don't appear to have even read this portion of David's eBook, including illustrations, where he discusses it. I do not believe this is an intellectually honest approach. If you have, in fact, read the eBook, then I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring what David presents as it is damning to your position, you have closed your mind, or you simply don't have the ability to comprehend it.
  6. Moreover, Speer's examples (of two X-rays) are irrelevant. Mantik already discussed (and demonstrated) this issue in his e-book, to wit: On the JFK lateral skull X-ray, the frontal bone appears to be intact, but on the AP skull X-ray, it is clearly not intact (much of the right side is missing). Therefore, as David has repeatedly said time and again: on a single X-ray, the human eye is not sensitive enough to discern how much bone is missing. So QED--directly from the X-rays in question!
  7. Pat: Either you didn't read David's response or you read it and are deliberately ignoring his response. This is misleading to those reading the thread. Let me ask, why does the left lambdoid suture abruptly terminate 2 to 3 cm to the left of the midline? Dr. Chesser confirmed Dr. Mantik's description of the left lambdoid suture, and this is just one additional finding to support an occipital skull defect extending to the left of the midline.
  8. From Millicent Cranor: Greg, here is my response to the comment you sent me by Pat Speer: Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that? Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it. I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays. This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory. Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible. Milicent Cranor
  9. I agree, Jon. However, I do not disparage the work contained in Talbot's book. That's not the reason why I don't place it as high on the list. The difference is that Talbot's focus is on reporting political / historical information that is potentially subject to at least some bias (even if he is correct). The work of Mantik (and now Chesser) is based on hard, and some would say "cold," scientific DATA. For instance, one cannot say with certainty that if Dulles betrayed JFK at the BOP, and JFK fired Dulles for it, then Dulles plotted the assassination. -- In other words it is not an exact science. But, one can say with certainty, that: 4.52658 + 7.21479 = 11.74137 -- In other words it is an exact science that is replicable provided that those conducting the experiments and taking the measurements are themselves competent and commit no errors. Indeed that is the very reason for others to make a good faith attempt at replication. It would verify or refute the findings. That a qualified, Board Certified Neurologist (Chesser) did, in fact, replicate the findings of Mantik serves to verify Mantik's conclusions unless or until other qualified individuals (at least one) attempt replication and discover errors.
  10. Very well summarized, Sandy. Indeed, overexposure results in darker x-rays not brighter. As far as the contrast issue is concerned, you may be talking about the HSCA copy of the x-rays. It has been posited that prior to public release they purposely produced copies of the x-rays with extra contrast (lower exposure?) to make some portions easier to see for the eyes of untrained lay persons. I believe that this is a possibility, but have no way of knowing which copies of the x-rays you saw.
  11. Hey Bob, I agree with you in principle. I also like the word you chose: Forced. Indeed, let's not forget that Mantik's critics are quick to point out, although it is irrelevant, that David is not a diagnostic radiologist.* -- Yet when I point out that Pat Speer lacks any credentials or experience in these fields I am accused of unfairly dismissing his views. * The critics allude to this lack of a specific credential as somehow negatively impacting Mantik's ability to properly interpret x-rays, but never explain how, notwithstanding his related qualifications as a physicist, a Board Certified Radiation Oncologist, and a practicing medical doctor with many decades of experience reading and interpreting x-rays.
  12. I believe David cites nine MD's in his e-book, but let me double check. I just spoke with Mili on the phone and she is checking. However, she said, "In any event the sworn testimony of the Chief Neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, who had the most relevant credentials than all the rest put together--and who got the best look at the back of the head--is alone worth more than 50 others. And he told the WC that he saw cerebellum." She is sending me more material on this issue later today. I will post it when I receive it. Mili also said: "That was only the number of doctors I quoted because of the good details they gave – but others could also have commented on it."
  13. Pat Speer has cited two (2) Parkland doctors who anomalously believe that the wound was on the upper right side of the head, while the majority of the Parkland witnesses, nine (9) by my count, say that it was in the rear of the head. Several, including a neurosurgeon, record in their contemporaneous notes that cerebellum was visible and, in fact, oozed out of the wound. Can Pat account for the fact that these doctors somehow considered it plausible that they could see cerebellum when the wound was 'really' at the right top of the head? What quantity of brain would be required to be evacuated in order for the "Pat Speer exit hole scenario" to be valid? Would physicians who had seen the tremendous amount of displaced brain material--necessary to expose the cerebellum--not have a compelling remembrance of exactly where this cavernous wound was, and not mistakenly claim that it was in the occiput in notes written up within mere hours of Kennedy's death? Since both Mantik and Horne posit an entry near the right ear, the right parietal area would likely also be involved, but probably not very visible especially if the scalp had fallen back into its place of origin. On another note: Why the false dichotomy? Pat would seem to have us believe that the wound needs to be either parietal or occipital, but could not include both. Why? David is not ruling out the parietal area. He is maintaining that the wound involved the occiput, and likely involved the parietal, as well. That appears to be one of the items from the autopsy report that was factually correct. Pat, perhaps it will also prove useful--to those of us trying to understand your POV--to create an exhibit demonstrating where your exit wound is located, which is an analogue to the one shown at Lancer.
  14. Gene, Why are you changing the subject? This is about the scientific method. I assumed, rightly, that you know what it is and that you know the value of it as per your own profession, else I wouldn't have been sarcastic about it. Having said that, Pat Speer has not offered any cogent rebuttal to David's QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS in this thread. Yet, we know that is where any real debate about this specific aspect of the cranial x-ray evidence should begin. It is not about a past error nor is it about alleged, but provably unfounded, omissions. The scientific method demands that any real debate of this subject from where it now stands should focus on replication. In this case, replication or the failure to replicate, must begin from measurements. How could any scientist or layperson be taken seriously if they merely claim that the measurements taken by a scientist are wrong, but without ever demonstrating where the error exists? I recall a brilliant man whose family business was in plumbing. He discovered and ultimately proved that Stephen Hawking was wrong about the information "lost" in a Black Hole. Of course, Leonard Susskind is much more than a plumber. He is also an eminent Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University. Still, even with his credentials, nobody simply took his word for it, did they? Nope. He had to "do the math" and demonstrate Hawking's error. Yet, even with Susskind's background (an expert) it took him 28 years to prove Hawking wrong and he has one of the best minds in physics, access to the best methodologies, equipment, and peers to review his work in progress. Granted the x-ray study does not require nearly as complex an understanding of physics as the study of Black Holes requires. Still, refuting MEASUREMENTS can really only be accomplished by providing alternate MEASUREMENTS. So far we have not seen any from Pat Speer. This is not about respect for another's point of view, Gene. It is about self respect. Any self respecting researcher who does not respect the scientific method, but only pays lip service to it, has more than my opinion of them to worry about.
  15. Sometimes you need to flush your DNS cache memory to get the page to refresh completely or you can try it form a different computer. It's funny because when I first published the article, the author, Dr. Chesser called me up and said that he couldn't see the whole article on his machine either. When I told him to try it on a different computer it was there all along.
  16. You didn't even bother to read the thread! Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure. Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote! Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method. "They will wear you down." They can try.
  17. Hi Tom, Here's a screen shot of the poll. It is located just beneath the "CONCLUSIONS" frame in the article and is just above the "Comments" section. Are you able to find the Conclusions frame? Are you able to scroll to the Comments section? It is in between those two. Sorry you are having so much trouble finding it, but I can't vote for you. The poll is set to only allow one vote per IP address, including mine.
  18. Gene, I was referring to the proper approach to scientific inquiry: scientific method. I do not believe that Pat Speer has offered anything close to it, particularly nothing quantitative. Your analogy to Einstein and quantum mechanics is fatally flawed. The scientific debate that yet persists about those subjects at least proceeds according to the tenets of scientific method. I am not suggesting that we should silence Part Speer or dismiss HIM out of hand. I am arguing that he should be held to the same STANDARD as the scientific community is held when critiquing a scientific study. Those who challenge Einstein's theories are only taken seriously if they can show that Einstein's "math" is flawed, his experiments are somehow not replicable, or they can produce a better alternative to it. Those who criticize Einstein, for example, would never be heard at all if they simply tossed proverbial darts at his work without sincerely attempting to replicate it in good faith. The claim of cold fusion in the living room was debunked through the inability of other scientists to replicate it. But at least they made the attempt at replication. That's what I am challenging Pat Speer to do before he advances "quantitative claims" for which he has produced no support let alone proof. This is about employing the best methodology available in order to test the hypothesis in question. This should not be about Pat Speer reflexively disputing anything David Mantik publishes, yet that seems so. It should be about both sides of the debate conforming to accepted standards of properly conducting scientific inquiry. Surely you find merit to the scientific method? You don't seem to, but I'll let it go.
  19. Gene, I am not dismissing him on the grounds that he lacks credentials. I am objecting to his taking pot shots from the gallery. There is a way to approach this that would lend itself to discovering more about the evidence. That approach is cooperative rather than divisive. That approach would attempt to replicate the findings before dismissing them. You should know better with YOUR credentials than to argue otherwise.
  20. You didn't even bother to read the thread! Everyone does NOT agree that the "white patch" in the x-rays is the result of over-exposure. Indeed, the only two persons who are currently engaged in this forum debate who are professionally trained to make such judgments, Drs. Mantik and Chesser, actually took measurements on the real autopsy x-rays, and both concluded that the x-rays were NOT over-exposed. So the truth is the opposite of what you just wrote! Those forum members who claim otherwise can't even get into the archives to conduct tests due to lack of expertise. I wish they could get in so that they could at least attempt to provide us with quantitative data to support their scurrilous speculation. But, until they do provide quantitative data to support their claims, their conclusions are nothing more than an assortment of unsupported assertions that do not derive from the scientific method.
  21. For some reason when I go to your site this poll does not appear. I do see the poll regarding what the conspirators had to gain. I have scrolled from top to bottom and still no poll... Tom Hey Tom, This poll isn't on the first page or on the side bar. That's where the old poll is located. The new poll is on the page containing Doctor Chesser's article. Click here: A Review of the JFK Cranial x-Rays and Photographs -- then scroll all the way to the very end of the article and you will find the poll on the bottom toward the left side.
  22. To be clear, I do not believe, nor have I ever claimed, that a person who holds an advanced degree is necessarily correct. Neither have I claimed, nor do I believe, that an advanced degree is required for an individual to arrive at the truth, nor that the truth an amateur arrives at may only be valid if it, in fact, agrees with the experts. However, when we are talking about truth as discoverable through science, then the SCIENTIFIC METHOD should be relied upon rather than lesser methodologies. Doctors Mantik and Chesser have employed the Scientific Method to advance their positions. Pat Speer has not. I am inviting him to do so. That other experts have failed to conduct experiments to attempt to replicate the findings of both Mantik and Chesser, respectively, does not constitute any type of proof that Mantik and/or Chesser are mistaken. Pat Speer makes overly broad criticisms without providing the science to support his conclusions. As David pointed out above: If Speer disagrees with this conclusion then he should say so—and supply quantitative data. ​I can only conclude that Pat Speer does not supply original quantitative data because he does not possess any. He points out that Mantik's original findings were published 20 years ago, but fails to point out that no scientist has ever refuted Mantik's findings by supplying quantitative data in support of such refutation. As I said in a different thread: What I find most amazing is that we have so-called researchers here who have never themselves handled or directly examined the autopsy evidence, yet claim to have some inside info on what the evidence shows. Additionally, not only do they lack experience with handling, examining and testing these specific items of medical evidence, but they also lack having ANY experience with handling, examining or testing ANY medical evidence from ANY autopsy from ANYWHERE at ANY time. So Brian, this goes way beyond any bias toward an expert's opinion over an amateur's opinion. It speaks to the qualification required to render an educated opinion based not only on academic credentials, but on actual practical real-world experience. Like I said, I hope the view is good from the cheap seats. If they are not the cheap seats then perhaps Pat should put some quantitative data where his mouth is!
  23. Results of poll thus far reveal that the top two answers are: Answer "both 5 and 6" is leading with about 63% of the vote and answer "1" is in second place with about 15% of the vote.
  • Create New...