Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

I just published an article by my dear friend, Milicent Cranor, on my main website. As many of you know, Pat Speer has been critical of the work done by Dr's Mantik and Chesser. Please read this article and come to your own conclusions.

PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is the first one on the main page. However, I also have now added a direct link here and edited it into the above post for your convenience. I am not "out to get" anyone. I simply published an article by someone who checked his facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The article is the first one on the main page. However, I also have now added a direct link here and edited it into the above post for your convenience. I am not "out to get" anyone. I simply published an article by someone who checked his facts.

What nonsense, Greg. It's title suggests it's a balanced analysis of patspeer.com, when it is in fact a knee-jerk, and embarrassing (I hold most of Ms. Cranor's work in high regard) attempt to smear me based on my position on but one aspect of the case, a position I explain in detail in chapters 18c and 18d of my website.

Now, here's the kicker. It seems obvious you're hosting this article and posting this link as part of your ongoing defense of Dr. Mantik.

But it's actually not quite the defense of Mantik you assume it is...

Here are its opening lines... (with some additional comments)

Pat Speer has been promoting the idea that the defect in JFK’s head was only on the top right, a hole that did not extend into the back of the head. He contrasts it with an obviously false one — that the defect was low in the back of the head, to the exclusion of the top and side.

(Yep, that's what I've been doing, more or less. It depends on what one calls the "back of the head." On my website, in the very chapters Ms. Cranor appears to be attacking, I present some gifs which prove the head wound in the autopsy photos extended much further back than most assume. In any event, what Ms. Cranor fails to acknowledge is that this "obviously false hole" is a hole in the location presented in the so-called McClelland drawing. If she thinks the hole in the McClelland drawing is "obviously false", why not come out and say so instead of attacking me for attempting to prove it was false?)

The real issue isn’t “hole-on-top versus hole-in-back,” because nearly all testimony combined describes a defect that included both the top — and the back of the head.

(Ugh... This was PRECISELY the point of chapter 18c, the chapter which is purportedly in need of a "factcheck." Ms. Cranor avoids, moreover, that some of the witnesses, e.g. Crenshaw and Bell, who are most admired by those who assume Ms. Cranor is coming to their defense, held that the wound was low on the back of the head, and that Dr. Mantik has long held that the Harper fragment sprang from the middle of the back of the head, between the ears.)

The real issue is expert testimony versus the authenticity of the X-rays and photographs that contradict it. Many suspect the X-rays and photographs have been tampered with, culled, or substituted in order to reflect the official story: one shot from behind.

(This is covered on my website ad nauseum. Chapter 18c proves the wound, according to the witnesses, was not where most CT writers like to pretend it was. Chapter 18d offers up a number of the reasons I've come to believe the autopsy photos are largely unaltered. I discuss the x-rays in chapters 18 and 18b.)

As far as the rest of it, I'm not sure what she's trying to prove. She says there was a large wound of the skull in DALLAS, and that the size of the three bones flown in from Dallas prove this. Well, HELLO, that's what I've been saying all these years! She says this, moreover, to try to refute my supposition the wound as seen in Bethesda did not include the occipital area prior to the doctors' peeling back the scalp, when skull fell to the table. She also cites the measurements and descriptions of the wound provided in the autopsy report as evidence of this large wound. But, uhh, these measurements and descriptions are almost certainly for the wound as observed after the scalp was peeled back. There is most certainly no evidence they tried to measure the wound through the blood-soaked hair and torn scalp.

In short, the article is quite confusing to me. While presented as a critical examination on my website and my theories, it actually pushes two points that are supportive of my theories. For one, it pushes that the wound as depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing is obviously false. For two, it pushes that the wound was quite large before it got to Bethesda, which cuts into all the body-alteration stuff currently in vogue with Horne and Mantik. So, thank you, Milicent. I think.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the points that have been lost on you will become clearer in the subsequent installments. But I doubt it.

As I said to Brian, I simply published an article that checked your facts. Mili is independent. Unlike some authors, she will give credit where and if credit is due. Irrespective of your criticism of the work by Mantik and/or Chesser, IMO, Mili's article stands on its own merit as an expose` intended to enlighten the reader so that they may draw their own conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the points that have been lost on you will become clearer in the subsequent installments. But I doubt it.

As I said to Brian, I simply published an article that checked your facts. Mili is independent. Unlike some authors, she will give credit where and if credit is due. Irrespective of your criticism of the work by Mantik and/or Chesser, IMO, Mili's article stands on its own merit as an expose` intended to enlighten the reader so that they may draw their own conclusions.

I don't have a dog in this fight, other than to suggest that the research community needs to become comfortable with the idea of peer reviewed research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think other than that JFK's skull was shot to pieces in a brief space of time.

His killer(s) meant to kill him, not merely wound him. The killing was a compact event. Six seconds, maybe longer.

To me, this means there were multiple, experienced killers, whose job was to make absolutely sure JFK didn't leave D.P. alive.

Many have written that the executioners must have been killed. I don't think that's a given.

The assassination, I believe, was a highly skilled, mechanical event.

The framing of Oswald and the cover-up are where the fruits of investigation lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to think other than that JFK's skull was shot to pieces in a brief space of time.

I agree. As for the squabbling over the details, I'm starting to become Mantik-depressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is Millicent Cranor's response to Pat Speer from above:

Pat Speer said: "What nonsense, Greg. It's title suggests it's a balanced analysis of patspeer.com, when it is in fact a knee-jerk, and embarrassing (I hold most of Ms. Cranor's work in high regard) attempt to smear me based on my position on but one aspect of the case, a position I explain in detail in chapters 18c and 18d of my website..."

Some people have stopped making excuses for Pat Speer. They used to say his "mistakes" are simply the result of incompetence. Now, after reading my short but revealing report, and especially after reading his evasive non-response to it -- they say they know better.

For those forum members who are interested, here is a sample of Speer's cherry-picking of evidence. This one concerns part of his "proof" that the large wound in JFK's head did not include the back of the head, or the occipital region.

He focused on the pathologists' descriptions of lacerations in the scalp. He said "none" were reported in the back of the head. Elsewhere he expressed it as "no large lacerations" were reported in the occipital region. (Pat Speer) This is supposed to prove the big hole did not include the back of the head? It might seem that way -- if you don't know what else the pathologists said.

Omitted by Speer: The pathologists ALSO said there was NO SCALP AT ALL (or bone) in the large hole which included the BACK OF THE HEAD, specifically the occipital area. (See item #1 under "Missile Wounds" of the Autopsy Report, p.3)

This is a significant part of the autopsy report. It completely neutralizes what Speer was trying to use as proof of his position -- and he doesn't even mention it in this discussion.

See for yourself:

Pat Speer said: "You see, many conspiracy theorists are, in the words of Bono, "stuck in a moment and they can't get out of it." That moment, to be clear, is the one in which they first realized the majority of those observing Kennedy's wounds at Parkland Hospital claimed to see an open wound on the back of Kennedy's head. Such a wound, of course, is not shown in the autopsy photos, nor reported in the autopsy report, which details a number of significant scalp lacerations, but none on the back of the head. My suspicion, then, is that the majority of those experiencing this moment--an epiphany as Doug Horne calls it--have come to believe either that the autopsy photos showing no wound on the back of the head are fake, and the autopsy a lie, or that someone altered Kennedy's body between Dallas and the beginning of the official autopsy at Bethesda.

"Many doing so claim the autopsy face sheet supports their conclusion, and note that Dr. Boswell's description of a 17 by 10 cm wound encompassing the majority of the right side of the President's head is far larger than the wound observed in Dallas, and suggests the wound as seen at Bethesda included the back of the head wound seen at Parkland. Those doing so, however, are engaged in self-deception. As stated, no large scalp lacerations in the occipital region of the skull were noted at autopsy." [Emphasis M.C.'s]


You have to wonder: What else has Speer left out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how it's possible to prove any conclusion about JFK's wounds.

All the conclusions I've read are opinions based on unproven assumptions.

If a genie gave me one wish as to the assassination, I would wish to see complete photographs of JFK's head and upper body taken at Parkland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Someone's having a meltdown. It appears that Milicent has chosen to in interpret the autopsy protocol in a manner consistent with her favored scenario. 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. 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. 3. The scalp lacerations from this defect didn't stretch to the far back of the head. 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 all the missing bone was missing at the beginning of the autopsy. 5. The face sheet, which, IMO. is clearly authentic as it proves the conspiracy to lie about the back wound, fails to depict a large gaping hole on the back of the head.

In short, then, I'm still perplexed as to why Ms. Cranor is attacking me when she sat by for decades and failed to attack Lifton, Fetzer, Horne, Mantik, etc, who have long held there was an orange sized hole in the middle of the back of Kennedy's head--which is completely at odds with the bulk of the eyewitnesses, the photographic evidence, AND the autopsy protocol. What's going on?

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

It strikes me you have a concept.

That the autopsy photos are genuine. And that the autopsy x-rays are genuine.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

It strikes me you have a concept.

That the autopsy photos are genuine. And that the autopsy x-rays are genuine.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

It's not just a concept, Jon. When I started looking into the medical evidence, in 2003, I quickly realized that the vast majority of LNs said the medical evidence was legit, and proved no conspiracy, and that the vast majority of CTs thought the medical evidence was fake, and was faked to prove there was no conspiracy. It occurred to me that the only way I could get to the bottom of it was to start from scratch, that is, by reading every bit of testimony I could find and spending time at research libraries reading forensic journals. Well, I soon came to realize there was a third alternative: that the medical was legit, but suggested a conspiracy.

As time has passed, I have found more and more reason to believe this is indeed the case. The problem, however, is that most of the CT community is old, and entrenched, and very protective of their own theories. I have, in effect, made myself a target. And I understand that. And accept that. If you go through the archives of this website, you will see dozens of attacks on my scholarship and competence, etc--mostly by the body and film alteration camp, of which Greg is a charter member.

What makes this most recent attack so perplexing, however, is that, from what I can gather, Milicent is not part of this camp. Well, this suggests to me that Greg is trying to have it both ways, and hosting an attack on me simply because it is an attack on me, and not because it supports what he and his camp believe. Following in the footsteps of Fetzer, he is pushing David Mantik's (and now Mike Chesser's) bit about the x-rays. Well, one of the many problems with this, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that Mantik (and Horne) contend that the Harper fragment was ejected from the MIDDLE of the back of the head, at and below the level of the ears. Well, Milicent can't possibly believe Mantik is correct about this, IMO, at least not while pushing the authenticity of the autopsy protocol, or eyewitness statements.

So, let's be clear about this, shall we?

Middleman Greg, please ask Ms. Cranor if she supports David Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was blown out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, and that this hole is actually depicted on the x-rays, only most of us can't see it.

Something tells me her answer won't be what you'd like us to think it is.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

It strikes me you have a concept.

That the autopsy photos are genuine. And that the autopsy x-rays are genuine.

If I'm wrong, please correct me.

It's not just a concept, Jon. When I started looking into the medical evidence, in 2003, I quickly realized that the vast majority of LNs said the medical evidence was legit, and proved no conspiracy, and that the vast majority of CTs thought the medical evidence was fake, and was faked to prove there was no conspiracy. It occurred to me that the only way I could get to the bottom of it was to start from scratch, that is, by reading every bit of testimony I could find and spending time at research libraries reading forensic journals. Well, I soon came to realize there was a third alternative: that the medical was legit, but suggested a conspiracy.

As time has passed, I have found more and more reason to believe this is indeed the case. The problem, however, is that most of the CT community is old, and entrenched, and very protective of their own theories. I have, in effect, made myself a target. And I understand that. And accept that. If you go through the archives of this website, you will see dozens of attacks on my scholarship and competence, etc--mostly by the body and film alteration camp, of which Greg is a charter member.

What makes this most recent attack so perplexing, however, is that, from what I can gather, Milicent is not part of this camp. Well, this suggests to me that Greg is trying to have it both ways, and hosting an attack on me simply because it is an attack on me, and not because it supports what he and his camp believe. Following in the footsteps of Fetzer, he is pushing David Mantik's (and now Mike Chesser's) bit about the x-rays. Well, one of the many problems with this, as I have repeatedly pointed out, is that Mantik (and Horne) contend that the Harper fragment blew out the MIDDLE of the back of the head, at and below the level of the ears. Well, Milicent can't possibly believe Mantik is correct about this, IMO, at least not while pushing the authenticity of the autopsy protocol, or eyewitness statements.

So, let's be clear about this, shall we?

Middleman Greg, please ask Ms. Cranor is she supports David Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was blown out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head, and that this hole is actually depicted on the x-rays, only most of us can't see it.

Something tells me her answer won't be what you'd like us to think it is.

Thanks, Pat.

I finally understand where you're coming from on this.

My problem in understanding you in the past was based on the fact that I never knew when you were arguing your own point of view in your lengthy website articles, or laying out, in a "devil's advocate" kind-of-way, the viewpoints of your opponents.

Please remember in the future the old adage, "Simplicity is elegance."

Or for people like me, "Keep it simple, stupid."

Thanks,

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×