-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
Cliff,
You asked me a question in a different thread that I didn't answer yet (because I couldn't find the thread). However, it is on topic for this thread, too. So I'll post the answer here. You asked where David Mantik believes the back entrance wound is located. Based on his taped telephone conversation with Ebersole, I think the answer is T-4. David asked Ebersole straight out if that wound was located at T-4 and Ebersole confirmed that location. (I am replying from memory, but I think that is the case).
-
Posted for David Mantik, MD, PhD:
The reference to my conversation with Ebersole is correctly cited in the abstract--but not in the full PDF. I have asked the publisher to correct this.
Audio Recording of Conversation: A Telephone Conversation with Dr. John EbersoleOf course, I have already addressed Pat's arguments at: -
ok, so James now refuses to acknowledge my queries, even though he once respected my input, mainly because I disagreed with him.
and they say that this JFK thing of ours isn't personal...
Greg: what the hell is a 45? and what the hell is a B side?
just kidding. i saw one once in a museum.
Pat and I share a similar past career (in the music industry) although our paths never crossed. Hence the reference to "a 45" (record) is to the speed (in rpm's) at which those little vinyl records were played.
-
Thanks for the back up, Jim.
Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer.
All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed:
1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology
2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics
3) a reluctance to toot his own horn
4) an unparalleled attention to detail
5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks
6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all
7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi)
I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject).
* Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.
-
200 bucks today?
You must be joking.
Try closer to a thousand.
-
You're all very welcome.
-
Not that I care, but shouldn't the title at least be: "Trump Fires Stone" instead of backwards?
-
See this article on my website:
-
anyway, you get my point. there HAD to be a better way to fire a flechette that day. IF one were even used...
Perhaps a modified Colt 45 Model 1911-A suits your purposes better?
-
Colonel Prouty sent me this photograph of the flechette dart. It is placed next to a dime for size comparison purposes.
-
Greg,
Do you think the Dallas Police planted five unfired bullets in Lee Oswald's pocket?
Or, alternatively, do you think the DPD just MADE UP a story about LHO having 5 bullets in his pocket?
I have no idea what actually happened, but something is wrong with this picture. Very wrong.
I do not believe for a second that any competent police officer in any city in America would have failed to confiscate, mark, bag and protect the provenance (chain of custody) of such incriminating evidence. Its presence on the person of the suspect, if it actually existed at the time the arrest was effected, would be "golden" for the prosecution's case. That is to say, its mere appearance on the suspect would have definitely been used against the suspect in court had he lived to stand trial. Such evidence would be an "icing on the cake" piece of inculpatory evidence even if they failed to match the murder weapon. If they did match the murder weapon, it would nearly be a slam dunk.
The higher the case's profile and/or the higher the emotional investment of the arresting officer (suspect is accused of murdering a fellow police officer), then the more likely are the police to be extremely thorough in searching for and discovering incriminating evidence, collecting and safeguarding that evidence, all the while adhering to the letter of the law (not just the intent of the law) in order to insure that the suspect doesn't "walk on a technicality."
So I don't know if they: 1) planted evidence on his person; 2) just made it up; 3) were astonishingly incompetent; or 4) other -- But I suspect the answer is no longer relevant. However, in 1963, the answer to that question would have impacted a jury trial in favor of the defense.
-
[...]
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
The idea that a murder subject is allowed to walk around with bullets in his pocket for two hours is too silly for words.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah. Those bullets were really dangerous objects without a gun to put them into, weren't they, Garry? And with Oswald in handcuffs too.
No, the silly thing is to even begin to believe that the cops would have had any desire to "plant" 5 unfired bullets on suspect Oswald.
But CTers have a patent on "silly". In fact, it's stamped on their driver's licenses in most U.S. states.
[...]
Not only would bullets definitely be confiscated from the pockets of a murder suspect immediately, but so would EVERYTHING else! Arrest procedures are relatively uniform (but not identical) throughout the 50 States and have not changed very much at all since the days of the Old West. Of course, new technology has been introduced. But, as far as how the personal property of an arrestee is handled, the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) governs search procedures. If an officer has probable cause to effect an arrest he also has probable cause to search the pockets of the suspect and to remove from the suspect's possession any items that are potentially dangerous to the officer, to the suspect himself, or to others. This is not limited to "weapons" or ammunition, but potentially includes anything. A search "incident to the arrest" has been very common place for a very long time although that terminology wasn't in use prior to about 1969.
Have you ever watched the show COPS? Have you ever seen an officer find a crack pipe in a suspect's pocket? Have you ever seen an officer decide to put it back because the suspect had no crack cocaine to smoke in it? After all, theoretically speaking, if the pipe had never been used it would have had no residual illegal substance in it and would therefore itself not be illegal to possess. So too, an officer would not leave bullets in ANY arrestee's pockets under ANY circumstances. That the arrestee was a murder suspect and the victim was killed with a gun would give the presence of the bullets in the suspect's pockets even greater importance as well as bolster the probable cause justification for the search.
If not convicted of the crime, it is also the suspect's Constitutional Right to be reunited with his possessions (so long as they are legally his or hers to own) upon release. Therefore the content of his pockets, such as, his wallet, car keys, money, pocket knife, compass, scrap paper, and -- even bullets -- would need to be segregated according to what constitutes evidence against the accused versus that which is merely his or her personal property. In the end, if no indictment (or conviction) is entered against the suspect, then his or her personal property must be returned.
-
David Mantik's new abstract was just published in the peer reviewed medical journal, Medical Research Archives.
The essay can be found and downloaded (or read online) for free at this link:
The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest "Metallic Fragment"
Highly recommended reading.
-
For the sake of discussion, let's assume the limo stopped or slowed to a crawl...
The importance of the limo stop evidence is multifaceted. If we assume that the limo stopped (or for those who are yet undecided, that it slowed down to a crawl) but the extant film does not show that stop, then the film was tampered, hence a conspiracy to obstruct justice.
We must also ask why the presidential protection detail failed to follow the proper protocol for evading an attack. If a threat--particularly gunfire from any direction--is detected, then rapid acceleration and the acquisition of lateral motion is immediately indicated as the first means to protect. That the extant Z-film was edited to remove evidence of the limo stop (or extreme slow down) is not the point. The point for the editing / alteration was to conceal Secret Service complicity or gross incompetence when failing to follow normal protection procedures.
Greer's claim that he slowed down because he thought that they may have been "heading into an ambush" is ludicrous. It is the "gross incompetence at worst" limited hangout position.
Even if Greer did think that they were "heading into an ambush" (which means he thought there were shots from the front) --indeed, especially if he thought that was the case--then rapid acceleration / lateral motion (a zig-zag pattern) should have been his conditioned, reflexive response. After all, what other choice did he have? Was he considering putting the vehicle in reverse? Perhaps a U-turn? No, Greer actually had to "think it through" in order to override his training and resist the reflexive response with which he was conditioned to properly respond. In other words, slowing or stopping the vehicle was the absolute worst choice he could have made. It would all but insure success for the assassin(s). Choosing to stop was a decision that first countermanded the correct "trained" response and then replaced it with "new" faulty instructions.
If Magic Johson fed Kareem Abdul Jabaar the basketball on a fast break, while Kareem was standing alone under the basket, Kareem would instinctually slam dunk the ball. In order for him to fail he would need to deliberately stop, wait for the defenders to come back and guard him, and then allow them to block his shot. He would literally have had to "override his conditioning" to prevent himself from making the correct play (a slam dunk). If he did this when the Lakers were down by one point with only a half second on the clock and it lost the game for them, what would we think happened?
-
[...] Because Vince was not looking at the case in an official capacity. What he did was pure entertainment. And it should be look upon in that way.
[...]
Entertainment? I'd sooner watch Granny Clampett mud wrestling with Roy Clark on a deranged hybrid between The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw!
-
This is the link I referred to above about Ruby shooting LHO.
I got it from this forum: http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?
and it is:
The Oswald Shooting by Edward L Chiarini Jr.Kenneth,
You provided my forum's link as the source for this trash. That is unfortunate. The individual who made the YouTube is not even a member of my forum. The individual who posted a link to that YouTube on my forum has since been banned form participation on the forum. Had I viewed the YouTube when it was first posted to my forum, I would have deleted the post.
JFK's Jimmy Carter? Really? Boy Carter sure looks great for a guy turning 100 years old in less than two years!
Joe Kennedy, JR. is really George H. W. Bush? Really?
Did you notice that Jack Ruby was wearing shoes by Gino Magli, too?
-
-
It is not my job to pass judgment on Gary Mack. However, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that he was the stalwart of moral and ethical fortitude that some here are suggesting.
If we assume that Gary was sincere when he privately claimed to believe the official version was wrong and that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy (no matter the details), then several pertinent questions are raised automatically. He apparently believed that the truth had yet to be told since he did not believe the official story.
1) Why did Gary believe that the truth had yet to be discovered and revealed?
2) Did he believe that those who have dedicated a great deal of their lives to researching the evidence and have arrived at various conclusions, some erroneous, are mostly responsible for the suppression of the truth?
3) Did he believe that the reason that the truth is yet to be known is due to erroneous beliefs held by some conspiracy theorists?
4) Did he believe that by eradicating these erroneous theories the resources of the federal government would again be spent on reopening the investigation and getting to the bottom of it?
5) Did he really believe that erroneous "conspiracy theories" were the reason the truth was not known for over 50 years and that it was his responsibility to rid the research community of these false conclusions?
6) Did he really believe that if he was successful in this (self-appointed?) mission to cleanse the research palate, that truth and justice for JFK would prevail?
7) If so: How?
So while I cannot pass judgment on Gary Mack, I'm sure that if there is a God and if Gary did have a soul, the answers to those questions might prove to be less than amusing when addressed from a position not shielded from the hot seat.
-
-
Hi Jim
Fascinating material. You really have been digging into this.
Question: Was LHO on the CIA's Watch List for mail interception at the time he supposedly ordered the rifle and pistol? And, if he was, what does this tell us about the CIA?
According to Professor George Michael Evica, on page 16 of the Prologue to his book, A Certain Arrogance, it was the FBI who was monitoring Oswald's mail at the time the Warren Commission alleges that the rifle was ordered.
-
AssassinationOfJFK.net main website
Forum's Founding Members:
Greg Burnham (Admin)
David Mantik, MD, PhD
Adele Edisen, PhD
Phil Guiliano
Charles Drago
John Costella, PhD
Stan Wilbourne
Scott Myers
Phil Dragoo
[Forum is mainly for advanced research]
================
The Collected Works of Colonel L Fletcher Prouty (Len Osanic)
================
Topics on the National Security State of America (Dave Ratcliffe)
-
Its authenticity was established more than one decade ago, hence plural. I don't have the exact date in front of me when (I believe) Bruce got his copy, but I am fairly certain it was at least 20 years ago.
You might find this one interesting, too.
[All information contained below was unclassified as of October 15, 1993 -- Twenty-two years ago]
-
I didn't know that about the memo - we certainly do owe him - the memo's authenticity has of course been questioned; is it surely legitimate?
The memo's authenticity was established decades ago, Glenn. Here's a copy:
BTW, it was McBride who discovered this document? when was this discovered?
Actually, it was not McBride who first discovered this document. Or at least he was not the only one who discovered it. I've had this document for at least 15 years, long before I had ever even heard of McBride. I know that Bruce Campbell Adamson also had it long ago, perhaps going on 20 years or more.
-
Is this from Richard Bartholomew?
The "Shallow" Back Wound and the "Short" Shot
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Pat,
I highly recommend that you go to a shooting range and consult with a professional on this issue. I suggest resisting the urge to tell him your inquiry is about the Kennedy case. Keep it generic so that you get unbiased answers. If it is an outdoor range with plenty of room, you may even be able to rent a .22 and ask the professional to attempt the shot--or, if you're comfortable with shooting, attempt to do it yourself. Unlike Dealey Plaza, more than likely you will be on a flat surface from shooter to target and the target will not be moving. So it will be easier--much easier. Yet, even then, I am certain you will find the level of difficulty exceeds what the "paper model" looks like.
As far as the mind-set of Kennedy's killers, we aren't dealing with people who settle for the mere possibility of success. We are talking about certainty. A professional's weapon of choice here would be critical. I believe that those on the "mechanic" level who actually executed this murder (pulled the triggers) knew how to get the job done and left nothing to chance in terms of the absolute certainty of its being successful. Would their first choice, assuming they had options, include a weapon that fired a .22 subsonic round? -- No! -- Not because a hit is impossible, but because a hit is much less likely than it would be with a superior weapon. The chart you referenced [above] is based on a 0 degree incline (or decline) from shooter to target. Those were not the conditions in Dealey Plaza. Precise calculations are required to insure a hit and those "equations" are dependent on which floor of which building the shooter was placed, as well as the precise location of the target on Elm St (which was on a decline) at the time of that shot, how fast the target is moving, the direction of travel relative to the shooter's position--including lateral motion--and, of course, the wind. These "factors" can dramatically impact the accuracy of a subsonic round by comparison to a high powered round in that a lot more can go wrong.
We can go round and round on this topic "in theory" but nothing will demonstrate it better than empirical data, at least some of which you can obtain for yourself.