Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. Thank you to all who participated in this debate in good faith. To the rest...nothing.
  2. There we have it. A refusal to address those specific issues. You have something on your side, Pat. It's like what Allen Dulles allegedly said about fears that the problems in the Warren Report might one day be discovered. Paraphrased, he reportedly said: "Don't worry. Nobody reads." Indeed, you are safe.
  3. Thanks, Jim. Now that we have that out of the way, back on topic. PS: Irrespective of Fetzer's many shortcomings and my nearly total disagreement with him on almost everything, I do think that the introduction was, in fact, very well written. Like I said earlier in this thread, authorship is not nearly as important as is content.
  4. Nice try. First: Guilt by association is a logical fallacy. Second, as Pat well knows, Fetzer and I had a major falling out many years ago. He is not my friend nor do I subscribe to his theories. These days he rarely, if ever, makes worthwhile contributions, but they are so few and far between that they are mostly non-existent. Michael, have you ever studied basic logic? If you have, then you already know that such an argument is not sound reasoning. Also see my post: Fetzer and Guilt by Association
  5. Pat, You are again evading and avoiding. That is your prerogative, but it does not speak to the issues. Your penchant for putting words in my mouth is tired and old. I have never said or implied what you wrote above. Lose the martyr complex.
  6. But what's not discussed AT ALL here or at PatSpeer.com are the many, many red items contained in the article that is the title--and therefore the subject--of this thread.
  7. Of course, David Mantik discusses, in detail, this location for the final headshot in his e-book: John F. Kennedy's Head Wounds: A Final Synthesis - and a New Analysis of the Harper Fragment Has Speer even read it?
  8. Elsewhere (in another thread) you wrote that you are not contesting the OD data. If that is true, how can you conclude that the x-rays are legit? After all, Dr. Chesser performed OD measurements on both JFK's pre-mortem cranial x-rays (at the JFK Library) and on his post-mortem cranial x-rays (from the archives) and they do NOT match each other! How do you explain this?
  9. If Millicent Cranor is not an expert on the JFK medical evidence, then neither are you! Does that mean we should reject all of your claims out of hand? As for Dr. Chesser, did you even read what he wrote??? ADDENDUM: Michael Chesser, MD March 8, 2016 My review of the x-rays and the scalp retraction photograph leads me to the following conclusions: There is a dark area on the AP x-ray, inferior to the left lambdoid suture, with sharp demarcation, which can only be explained by missing occipital bone. This skull defect extends to the left of midline in the upper portion of the occipital bone, and has an outline which is consistent with the Harper fragment. I could not see the right lambdoid suture on the AP x-ray, and this indicates bone loss at least involving the right occipital-parietal junction. The AP x-ray also reveals a dark area inferior and lateral to the orbit on the right side, compared with the left, indicating loss of bone/brain substance in the temporal and occipital region. On the lateral x-ray the lower occipital skull appears disrupted, with jagged fragments. Dr. Mantik’s OD data confirm missing bone in various regions of the occipital bone. I agree with Dr. Mantik’s placement of the Harper fragment. If the three Dallas pathologists were living I would ask them about the features which were visible on the bone fragment which led them to this conclusion. They were looking at a portion of the skull of the President, and I don’t believe that they came to a hasty conclusion, and they must have seen clear features which localized to the occipital bone. The central occipital skull defect seen on the scalp retraction photograph, and the outline of the dark area on the AP x-ray both point toward the Harper fragment’s localization to this area. I believe that the central (extending to the left) occipital skull defect is separate from the exit wound identified by the Parkland and Bethesda personnel. The right occipital wound was described as missing overlying scalp and meninges. I think that the area of the Harper fragment was most likely an area in which there was an overlying flap of scalp. It is also possible that these defects were partially contiguous, with the region of the Harper fragment covered by the scalp. As for Cyril Wecht's description of the article as a whole: It is outstanding. It is a marvelous satire (written to expose and criticize stupidity according to Webster). What you have written, Pat, is an example of some of the most intellectually dishonest offerings I have yet to read here or anywhere.
  10. You "proved" nothing of the sort! You have failed to even provide any non-subjective evidence in support of this claim. I suppose Millicent Cranor--who has been studying and reporting on the medical evidence long before anyone ever heard of you--is also wrong? I suppose Dr. Michael Chesser--who has handled and tested the actual autopsy materials--is also wrong? I suppose Dr. Cyril Wecht--who has done all of the above and more--is also wrong? I suppose nine (9) Parkland doctors--who attended to the actual body of the president in trauma room one--are also wrong?
  11. Classic ploy, Greg. Declare victory then retreat. You started a series of threads pushing nonsense on this forum. I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone. You tried every which way to get out of this, eventually deciding that a group assault on my credibility was in order. Only I didn't take the bait. This was never about me or what I think; it was always about Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone. He was wrong. Get over it. Pat, You have not addressed any of the MANY items in the essay. Instead you change the subject to imply that this is due to some type of personal differences between you and others or that I am merely defending a friend's work. Please stay on topic. Answer the RED items...or don't answer them. But please stop changing the subject into a personal conflict. It is not about that.
  12. Pat Speer is out of ammunition. He has nothing new to say. He has not attempted to address the items in question. He does not even recognize what happens to 3D features in a 2D photo (a fact that was emphasized), nor does he address the three pathologists who held the bone in their hands and still called it occipital! Isn't it too bad that Speer was not able to hand them his artist's drawing so he could properly educate them? Enough with this nonsense. With no tip remaining on his weapon, Quixote has retreated from the windmills in resignation, after all.
  13. First, the entire topic is titled with Pat Speer's name in it! So it is about his work. It is not about him personally nor anyone else. It is also about his having been challenged to defend the positions that he has advanced on his website, PatSpeer.com. He has asserted many things for which he has offered no proof. The tilting items in red invite his proofs to be told. He has attempted to refute the proofs offered by others--who are experts in their field--without himself providing a foundation for such refutation, including a gross lack of data and a total lack of "hands on" research. He may not be able to control all of this, so I don't blame him for lacking these things. However, one must still be capable of defending their position and / or refuting another's position when put to task. Assuming he is relying on any foundation at all...we implore him: Please, hide it no longer!
  14. Before this thread strays so far OFF TOPIC that it will become difficult to steer back, let me offer this proposal to Pat Speer. The article challenges him to answer--or at least adequately address--many items of interest that he has avoided in the past, namely, the items marked in RED within the article. He has suggested that I identify the author(s) of the article [for whatever reason]. Although the identities are irrelevant, in an effort to reach a compromise in which both his and our wishes are satisfied, I propose the following: I will agree to identify the anonymous author(s) of the article, but only after Pat Speer properly responds to all of the RED items and to Dr. Chesser's summary. As I have continually reminded him, the identity of the author(s) should not be relevant--as it is the data that matters. In fact, sometimes identifying the author(s) is counterproductive. Does Pat Speer actually disagree with this?
  15. This topic is about the glaring inconsistencies in Pat Speer's work, especially his criticisms of David Mantik's findings, as expressed in the article named in the title of this thread. Let's not stray away from that.
  16. I have never written such a thing anywhere. At least not in the context provided. Now, back on track. Not trying to change the subject but here is what I mentioned above. I didn't realize that this was from your own website. http://assassinationofjfk.net/rare-footage-jfks-final-minutes-dallas-motorcade/ You are WAY OFF topic! Please stop it. Furthermore, not only is this out of context, but you didn't even get my quote correct--nor was it even close!
  17. Russians & NASA Discredit ‘Fossil Fuel’ Theory: Demise Of Junk CO2 Science Last week new NASA photographs proved methane lakes exist on Saturn’s moon, Titan, showing that such hydrocarbons (or so-called ‘fossil fuels’) are seemingly plentiful in our solar system. This startling discovery turns on its head the long-held western belief that petroleum is a limited resource, because it is primarily derived (we had been told) from the fossilized remains of dead dinosaurs and rotted carbon-based vegetation. But with that notion now exploded in the article ‘NASA Finds Lakes of Hydrocarbons on Saturn’s Moon, Titan‘ thanks to NASA’s Cassini spacecraft, energy scientists are now compelled to admit that petroleum oil is, in fact, substantially mineral in origin and occuring all through the galaxies. Two Years ago it was reported that the Max Planck Institute, Germany have discovered that the Horse Head Nebula galaxy in the Orion constellation contains a vast field of hydrocarbon (see ‘Top German Scientists Discover ‘Fossil Fuel’ in the Stars‘). As such, long-held fears about Earth’s shrinking ‘fossil fuel’ reserves may be bogus. These important new cosmological discoveries come coincidentally at a time when huge succeses in American oil drilling technology (‘frakking‘) are bringing a glut of oil onto the energy markets, causing a slide in global oil prices. Fresh oil reserves are being struck all over – some miles beneath the oceans, where Dino the dinosaur never roamed. As we reported (November 08, 2014) NASA’s new evidence supports previously controversial Russian claims that ‘fossil’ fuel theory is junk science. No wonder skepticism of the wide-ranging Green Agenda grows and serious doubts are rising as to whether humans need to divest themselves of the supposedly fast-diminishing energy source after all. Bodies of credible, independent western scientists, collaborating and collating their findings via the internet through fledgling organisations such as Principia Scientific International are calling for a re-assessment of over 2,000 eastern European peer-reviewed science papers on the issue, previously ignored by western governments, state-funded universities and the mainstream media. For decades Russian scientists have known that the fossil fuel theory is bogus and have compellingly demonstrated that petroleum is derived from highly compressed mineral deposits deep beneath the surface. But the most startling consequence to these findings is that oil is a constant renewable regenerating in nature. Since the Middle East oil crisis of the 1970’s gasoline suppliers have stoked media fears that our planet’s reserves are fast in decline. The term ‘peak oil’ was coined and we were told ‘fossil fuels’ would have to become increasingly more expensive as our insatiable appetite drank this ‘finite’ liquid energy source dry. Are we talking conspiracy theory or well-intentioned, but misguided group think that limits to our industrial expansion were essential if we were to tackle ‘peak oil’ and fears over man-made global warming (which has been stalled for a generation). Let’s be in no doubt, the emergence of group think about our ‘carbon footprint’ (dare we call it, propaganda) suited the long-term interests of the oil industry and western governments. ‘Big Oil’ has benefited from being told by academics that their resource was precious and limited (putting upward pressure on prices). Tax-raising governments are being increasingly taken to task for encouraging (through generous research grants) sympathetic academics to get on board to build a consensus on these inter-related but evidentially weak scientific theories. Repositioning Theory as Fact For decades the terms ‘peak oil’ and ‘fossil fuels’ have been synonymous. They imply we are inexorably faced with diminishing natural resources and the days of cheap carbon-based energy are gone. Supplanted in the public consciousness as real we grew to accept the inevitable coming of ever-higher energy prices as a consequence of our energy-reliant, consumer lifestyle. Journalists gleaned their own ‘evidence’ for such an apocalyptic narrative from bleak books such as James Howard Kunstler’s ‘The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century’ and Richard Heinberg’s ‘The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies’ among others and the public were sold on the fears. Constantly fed a diet of this garbage our collective unconsciousness unwittingly allowed the repositioning of Hubbert’s Theory of Peak Oil into fossil fuel fact. As a consequence, in 2005, Congressional Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett, Republican of Maryland, and Senator Tom Udall, a New Mexico Democrat created the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus and at a stroke turned attention to debunking such ‘limits to growth’ fallacies. Scientists who dissented from the (peer-reviewed) groupspeak were vilified or ignored. In the 1980’s distinguished British scientist, Sir Fred Hoyle FRS was one who tried and failed to expose the chicanery of proponents of the fossil fuel theory and diminishing world oil reserves. Hoyle, without the benefit of the worldwide web tried repeatedly to expose this flimflam, “The suggestion that petroleum might have arisen from some transformation of squashed fish or biological detritus is surely the silliest notion to have been entertained by substantial numbers of persons over an extended period of time.” The English professor valiantly argued that oil is abiogenic (i.e. from mineral deposition) and cannot be a biotic (from fossils). Yet despite his eminent stature Hoyle’s sage insight gained him no media platform. Along with Hoyle other western scientists refused to toe the politically correct line as evidenced in an increasing number of articles to redress the balance about petroleum economics. While several papers by Professor Michael C. Lynch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also exposed the myth of “oil exhaustion” and demonstrating the high-pressure genesis of petroleum. No media voice for them either. Russia Becomes World Energy Superpower Only in Russia, a nation that since the 1990’s and fall of the Berlin Wall, has eschewed military supremacy to become a global economic superpower, did Hoyle’s and Lynch’s words find a welcome community of likeminded scientists. Indeed, outside of the English-speaking world there is no controversy and its common parlance that oil is a mineral, not a biological product and as such our planet has endless untapped reserves. As a consequence of applying this knowledge Russia has gone from strength to strength astutely capitalising on its ‘liquid gold’ reserves. “I would describe the mindset right now among the Russian political elite as infused with ‘petroconfidence’,” So says Cliff Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, in an interview with the BBC. Indeed, between 1951-2001, thousands of articles and many books and monographs were published mainly in the mainstream Russian scientific journals proving abiotic petroleum origins – all ignored by western governments and media. For example, leading expert V. A. Krayushkin has alone published more than two hundred fifty articles on modern petroleum geology, and several books. Russian mineralogists, oil explorers and each successive government since the dark days of the former Soviet Union have been unalterably upbeat that they’ve ousted the ‘peak oil, fossil fuels’ nonsense. And who are we to argue – they’ve got the money in the bank to prove it. As a result Russia is firmly ensconced as the world’s second-largest oil exporter and is becoming so preeminent in the field of oil and gas exploration and innovation that the nation is set to usurp the U.S. not as a military force, but as the world’s energy superpower for the 21st century. Oil – Our Greatest Natural Renewable Energy Source Exploiting their cutting-edge technology Russia has successfully discovered numerous petroleum fields, a number of which produce either partly or entirely from a crystalline basement and which appears distinctly self-replenishing. Yes, you read that right – Russia enjoys the best naturally renewable energy source – petroleum! No billions wasted on wind farms, solar or wave white elephants here. Indeed, to our former soviet cousins, the idea of ‘peak oil’ is laughable because, if they’re calculations are right, oil is the most bountiful, most efficient and cheapest renewable fuel and will last at least for many hundreds of years to come. Disgruntled that the Russians have been allowed to take such a big lead the brightest and the best in the west are now using the blogosphere in helping to forge resurgence against the fossil fuel, peak oil myth. So says Daniel Yergin, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” and chairman of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a company that advises governments and industry. Yergin like others cites the compelling evidence that the MSM won’t show you; these anti-fossil fuel theorists cite alkanes, kerogen and many other petroleum related chemicals that have been found on meteorites – which we know can support no organic life and thus proving the lie of the fossil fuel theory. Why are We Still Being Lied to? Indeed, so lame has the fossil fuel theory become that even its most strident supporters are unable to muster the flimsiest of evidence for their position. In “The Abiotic Oil Controversy” key proponent of the abiotic (fossil) origin, Richard Heinberg admits his case is exposed as threadbare lamenting, “Perhaps one day there will be general agreement that at least some oil is indeed abiotic. Maybe there are indeed deep methane belts twenty miles below the Earth’s surface.” So scant is the evidence to support Heinberg and other western pro-fossil fuel theorists that in researching his article ‘The Evidence for Limitless Oil and Gas’ (Digital Journal), Bill Jencks reveals, “I searched the internet including Google Scholar and there seems to be no ‘absolute proof’ or support from direct modern research for the Biogenic Theory of oil and gas formation. This theory — for want of a better word — seems to be greatly ‘assumed’ by geologists throughout geological research.” Like me, Jencks found a mountain of evidence backing Russian claims. From the Joint Institute of the Physics of the Earth Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow we find incredible sources as revealed by A Dissertation by J.F. Kenney which condemns the outmoded 18th century “anarchaic hypothesis” that petroleum somehow (miraculously) evolved from biological detritus, and is accordingly limited in abundance. Instead, the fossil fuels hypothesis has been replaced during the past forty years by the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins which has established that petroleum is a primordial material erupted from great depth. Kenney states, “Therefore, petroleum abundances are limited by little more than the quantities of its constituents as were incorporated into the Earth at the time of its formation; and its availability depends upon technological development and exploration competence.” In a straight scientific shootout Peak Oil Theory vs Russian-Ukraine Modern Theory the Russians win hands down. But it remains a peculiar anachronism that there is no body of American or other English language peer review to verify or disprove the Russian science. But why are we still being lied to? With such unwillingness to correct these intellectual failings it is little wonder that there is growing dissatisfaction among voters and thinkers in English-speaking nations and the EU. Those who study carefully the facts now reasonably conclude that beyond the media hard sell there is no energy crisis; the world has a plentiful supply of cheap renewable petroleum and another enviro-myth needs to be mercilessly culled. References: Kudryavtsev N.A., 1959. Geological proof of the deep origin of Petroleum. Trudy Vsesoyuz. Neftyan. Nauch. Issledovatel Geologoraz Vedoch. Inst.No.132, pp. 242-262 (In Russian) Kudryavtsev N.A., 1951. Against the organic hypothesis of oil origin. Oil Economy Jour. [Neftyanoe khoziaystvo], no. 9. – pp. 17-29 (in Russian)
  18. Why the refusal to address the many, many RED items within the article irrespective of the authorship? The identity of the author is not nearly as important as what was written. To claim otherwise is a fallacy. Additionally, that you have not even attempted to address the items in Dr. Chesser's addendum is almost beyond belief. Also, Cyril used specific words, such as, outstanding and marvelous in his very complimentary review. Those are very straightforward adjectives. He also used another specific word, namely: satire. The definition of satire is: sat·ire ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/ noun the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature
  19. The anonymous Quixote essay was previewed by several informed individuals, all of whom knew the author's true identity. One such individual is Dr. Cyril Wecht, who is perhaps the most renowned forensic pathologist in the world. This morning I received an email from him allowing me to post his succinct review. Here is Dr. Wecht's review: "Your “Sorrowful Knight” article is outstanding. A marvelous satire of forensic scientific/medical investigation."--Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D.
  20. I have never written such a thing anywhere. At least not in the context provided. Now, back on track.
  21. It never ceases to amaze me that threads are so easily derailed. This is not about the head snap, per se. It is about the MEDICAL evidence. Although the article does mention the snap, it is not central. What of the many remaining red items that need to be answered?
  22. Greg, Are you saying that there was no "back-and-to-the-left" head snap? That the edited Z film just makes it appear there was? Yes. Interesting. Do you disagree with any other evidence of a shot from the front? The question you pose is overly broad and cannot be answered adequately in a thread dedicated to the MEDICAL evidence.
  23. I am not saying that the problem is necessarily with a claim being made (anthropomorphic global warming / climate change) that is untrue. I am saying there is a problem with the methodology used to arrive at such conclusions. That methodology is reflected in the emails that were never supposed to see the light of day outside the tight circle of agenda driven scientists. I suggest that anyone who is interested in this very important topic, review the emails that were sent between these scientists. Then judge for yourself if what they describe more closely conforms with the scientific method or with The Church of Climatology.
  • Create New...