Greg Burnham

Deleted

The obvious implication being there are different levels of classified. Geez! Was that too hard to figure out?

For those who have actually had a security clearance, your above comment speaks to your lack of experience.

There is CLASSIFIED

There is TOP SECRET

There is NOFORN

There is EYES ONLY

[etc]

FYI: Obama went on to further say: "There's 'top secret' and then there's TOP SECRET."

No, Mr President. There are documents that are CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are not CLASSIFIED.

There are documents that are "simply" CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are CLASSIFIED as:

TOP SECRET or EYES ONLY or NOFORN (aka: No Foreign Dissemination) and so forth.

Yes, Len, it is what it is.

Defending Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's email scandal this weekend, President Obama said to Chris Wallace [paraphrased]:

"Well, there's 'classified' and then there's CLASSIFIED."

-- The obvious implication being that there is some sort of distinction between two IDENTICAL words.

It was reminiscent of Bill Clinton--when facing possible impeachment--famously saying:

"It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is."

Sandy Larsen said:

Should we start a new thread? (Poor Greg.)

Chris Davidson said:

Sandy,

You should probably start a new topic.

Ya think?

Thanks for catching it, Bob.

Perhaps I should ask the moderators to change the title of this thread to: "The (JFK) Zapruder Windmills of Those Suffering from ADD."

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.)

Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think.

As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements.

And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it.

This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service.

This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did.

The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255.

Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be?

Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards?

P.S.

Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum.

I corrected my typo from Z-225 to Z-255 in the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

(Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 255. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 255. It matches to a tee.

The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

Geez. I feel like I'm in a debate with Trump, Cruz, or Hillary!

I will address each of your points above if / when you address the many red items in the article, which is the only subject that this thread is about.

You can't just walk away from that.

I most certainly can and I have!

Pat Speer said: Your association with Fetzer has had a negative effect on your credibility. With me, and I'm sure with many others.

Guilt by association is not logical, but that has never stopped you before.

Rather than address the many issues you are now engaged in yet another fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

You may as well claim that: "Since Burnham once was associated with Fetzer, there is no need to consider his arguments, as they must be flawed."

You have again succeeded in redirecting the topic away from your inability or unwillingness to address the issues.

Thank you to all who participated in this debate in good faith. To the rest...nothing.

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.

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.

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

Pat Speer said:

"... the ongoing claims of people like yourself that Mantik is this beacon of accepted science and that I am this ill-informed jerk challenging this wonderful beacon of accepted science."

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.

This is discussed in great detail in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com.

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.

Wow, that is crazy!

But maybe not so crazy after all. I mean, didn't the FBI have to watch the Zapruder film to come to these conclusions on when the shots were fired? If so, wouldn't this exhibit be a strong indicator that the Z film has since been altered? I should think so.

Yes. And the x-rays. Which brings us right back to the medical evidence.

Hi Sandy

The location the Harper fragment was found has always been the fly in the ointment that Lone Nut supporters have used to deny its possibility of being occipital bone. It just makes sense; how could a bone from the back of the head be found in front of the limo's position at z313?

Want to read something REALLY interesting? It's known as Warren Commission Document 298. Here is a link to it:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699

It seems the FBI believed Connally was shot in the back at about the z313 position, and the fatal head shot occurred when the limo was almost at the steps of the pergola, approximately 45 feet further down Elm St. than the z313 position (see visual aid on Page 26).

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?

Well, all this leads me to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit.

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?

That's a bogus argument if ever there was one. Cranor is neither an expert on these matters, nor has she ever presented a comparison of the fragment with the occipital bone to see if it could be occipital bone. Chesser has verified Mantik's OD data, but I'm fairly certain he stopped short of saying his measurements proved the Harper fragment was occipital bone. Cyril is non-committal. And none of the Parkland doctors has ever claimed the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

You claimed 12 "experts" in support of Mantik when it was at best 2 out of the 12. Shame.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone.

You "proved" nothing of the sort! You have failed to even provide any non-subjective evidence in support of this claim.

Pat Speer said:

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

Greg,

But Pat Speer...again? I simply don't know why you keep haggling Pat Speer. What exactly are you trying to prove here - that he's wrong? Or you're right? Or Dr Mantik is right?

[...]

As I said in an earlier post, *no one* is going to have the 100% Rosetta Stone solution to this case as much as we'd like to think we have. I know you keep mentioning that you wish people would stay on track here. You should know that this is a *forum* not Wikipedia, where people are free to share their thoughts and ideas.

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!

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?