Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      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 these  to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Martin Hay

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Martin Hay

  • Rank
  1. Riley's stuff is strangely overlooked. I've been recommending it to people for years. Did you try the email address at the bottom of "What Struck John?"? (jriley@silverlink.net)
  2. Hartogs' report

    Hartogs was a serious scumbag. In 1975 a jury found him guilty of malpractice because he had been convincing his female patients to have sex with him as part of their "therapy". No intellectually honest person would take anything said by such a man seriously.
  3. Jerrol Custer is not someone on whom I would rely too heavily. His ARRB testimony was frequently at odds with the known facts. For example, there is absolutely no dispute about the fact that a tracheotomy was performed on JFK at Parkland Hospital, and yet... GUNN: Did you ever see a wound on the front of President Kennedy's throat or the anterior of the throat? CUSTER: Yes, I did. GUNN: Could you describe the wound that you observed? CUSTER: A typical bullet hole. GUNN: How large was it? CUSTER: I would estimate, a little bigger than my little finger in dimension, across circumference - or diameter. GUNN: Okay. So, there was not a long incision or cut on the throat that you observed; is that correct? CUSTER: Not at that time, I didn't. Cleary the passage of more than 30 years had diminished the reliability of Custer's recollections. Which is to be expected. And it proves that the whole "You wouldn't forget something like JFK's autopsy" argument is total nonsense. Human memory is easily influenced and alters over time.
  4. The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot

    Hi Martin Maybe you should look a little closer at these things before posting them. Your video shows .22 LONG rifle ammo, not .22 SHORT ammo. Pat Speer distinctly said a SUBSONIC .22 bullet, and the only .22 ammo that is slower than the speed of sound, at 1035 fps, is .22 short ammo. Fair enough. My bad.
  5. The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot

    I thought this video might be relevant to the discussion. It shows .22 ammo penetrating 5 inches of meat wrapped in denim at 300 yards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAkOzr6cDx0
  6. The Saga of the Largest Metallic Fragment

    A very sensible approach, Glenn. There should be more like you.
  7. The Saga of the Largest Metallic Fragment

    ... I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows. ... I believe David Mantik MD, Ph.D., article is an update, within the last 2 weeks or so. Maybe your neuroscientist "expert" should take a peek, yes? Is there a reason why Dr. Riley is only an "expert" whereas Dr. Mantik is apparently the real deal in your estimation? Is it simply that you'd rather believe Dr. Mantik? FYI Dr. Riley (who has a Ph.D in neuroscience and specializes in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology) makes a compelling case for two shots to the head - one from the front and one from the rear - without resorting to claims of alteration. He is well worth checking out.
  8. The Saga of the Largest Metallic Fragment

    Indeed. Neuroscientist Dr. Joseph N. Riley pointed this out way back in 1993, writing: "There can be no doubt that the large circular fragment represents a bullet fragment embedded in the right supraorbital ridge. In non-technical language, this corresponds to the bone behind the right eyebrow." I think it's a shame that Mantik persists in his claims of alteration instead of updating his arguments to deal with what the evidence actually shows. Which, as Cyril Wecht and Gary Aguilar noted in their recent letter to the editor of the AFTE Journal, is that "a bullet fired from the right front...tangentially struck the top right portion of JFK's skull...with the bulk of the bullet being deflected upward out of the skull...leaving the trail of fine fragments" seen on JFK's lateral skull X-ray.
  9. The EOP Entrance revealed

    Kellerman prepared a diagram for the HSCA showing precisely where he thought the entrance wound was: Richard Lipsey and Francis O'Neil did the same: Nobody at the autopsy saw an entry wound high in the rear of the skull.
  10. Gary Mack has passed away

    Wasn't TMWKK before he began working at the museum?
  11. The EOP Entrance revealed

    That's why lone nutters so desperately cling to the ludicrous and completely unsupported "revised" entrance wound. They know that what neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley pointed out decades ago is absolutely true: "If the rear entrance wound is located where Humes et al. described it, it proves a second shot to the head. The fragments distributed in and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by Humes et al.; the wounds are discontinuous."
  12. Gary Mack has passed away

    Bill, did Gary share with you what he "really thought"? If so, I'm sure everyone would be interested to hear about it.
  13. Gary Mack has passed away

    I didn't see that program, but I thought Gary remained impressed by, if he wasn't an advocate of, the acoustics evidence, which said there was a shot from the fence. Was he just contradicting himself, or did he give up on the dictabelt stuff? Gary once told me that he believed the shots that hit all came from the sixth floor but there was a missed shot from the knoll. Which, of course, was the HSCA scenario.
  14. Gary Mack has passed away

    Trouble is, Duncan, you didn't prove Jim wrong. Because the show that snippet came from wasn't one of the many documentaries Gary "helped put on TV".