Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Posts

    2,253
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. There is (almost literally) nothing that DVP has ever written that I hold to be true. In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly we must choose to reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking system! Now THAT is complex.
  2. You're welcome, Jon. As for this poll, it's just an indicator of what the majority of those who participated in it believe is true. That in no way means that it "proves" what the truth is. It simply reports what the participants believe is true.
  3. Below: See the medical poll followed by the current results so far. If you would like to voice your opinion go to this link and scroll to the bottom of the article. The poll is on the left side after the "Conclusions" section.
  4. Jon, You and I have had our differences in other areas of JFK research, particularly our respective views on Vietnam. However, I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue. Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive. The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to that which is unnecessarily complex. In my experience with LN's I have found that they will cling to unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy irrespective of facts to the contrary.
  5. [i posted this in the wrong thread. I moved it to correct the correct thread.]
  6. Tommy, It is not impossible or "next to impossible" to prove a negative. The claim that one cannot prove a negative has been repeated so often that it is taken as true by those who are not well versed in logic. As a rather simple example, I can easily prove to you that I do not have your computer in my possession. After all, you just used that computer to write your post. Even in a courtroom proof of a negative (not guilty), although not required, goes a long way if proper evidence exists. For example, if a suspect is accused of committing a murder in Los Angeles, but is is later discovered that he was already in custody in San Francisco for shop lifting, then that is proof (an alibi) that he did NOT commit murder in LA. Even a single example of the ability to "prove a negative" disproves your claim. C'mon, you can do better than that can't you? Sandy posted proof for his claim. You have not. Will it help if the challenge is phrased in the positive for you? For instance, please provide proof positive that PMO's were honored absent bank stamps and/or other endorsements.
  7. Huh? Jon did not say that. How inappropriate a response. He even said: "Far better IMO is to latch onto the verifiable facts, some of which are included in Chesser's and Mantik's analyses."
  8. I hope it helps, Bob. It's the best I can do. Perhaps you can simply refer to the page number, paragraph, and line numbers for reference purposes. Not to go off topic, but to save you time, don't attempt to copy and paste "text" from the original PDF or from my .png files because it will never work. You can't cut and paste "text" from that type of a PDF. The original document was an "image file" that was "saved as" a PDF file. That's not the same as a document that was created in PDF to begin with or a document that was created using any type of "word processor." This document was created using a typewriter! It possesses no code for text. A word processor document that was "exported" as a PDF could have the text lifted from it (C & P), but an image file is a "picture of the text" without it actually containing any recognizable text coding. It's the best I could do. Good luck!
  9. Here you go, Bob. I uploaded the docs to my server. I have to upload to this forum in groups because there is a limit to the number I can post at the same time. Click on the images to see in full size.
  10. Hi Jim, Too easy. Paraphrasing: "Our case was good this morning and even better tonight." Of course it was. Look a the date of the newspaper: November 24, 1963. Oswald was dead by "tonight." Their case was not only "good and better" by tonight, it was closed.
  11. It is very obvious that you have not read David's e-book or you are ignoring those sections for which you have no answer.
  12. Thank you Doctor Speer. I will consult you the next time I need a possible bone fracture diagnosed.
  13. Me too, Evan. One of my favorite stand-up routines of all time was his HBO Special: Cosby Himself. He just sat up there on a simple metal chair, like the type you'd see in an auditorium, with a microphone in his hand. No other props. And he talked about simple life events, like having and raising kids, what parents deal with, the dentist's office...just regular stuff. But it was brilliant in its levity and simplicity. Now his light don't shine so bright after all. A pity. Yet sometimes a famous and beloved celebrity's fall from grace can distract us from the horror caused to those who were abused. He is not the harmed party here nor are we. The women are the victims. I don't know exactly what justice for them looks like, but I sure hope they get it. And peace.
  14. Bill Cosby Charged with Crime in Philadelphia for sexual assault. Unlike the civil lawsuits that he has settled out of court in the past, Cosby will not be able to throw money at the accusation to make it go away. These charges are criminal and will be settled in a courtroom by a jury. Cosby claimed the 2005 incident, which in 2006 was settled during a civil suit, was innocuous and that his accuser consented to the act by failing to object or stop him--even though he admitted to having given her pills and wine before fondling her. His accuser said then--and maintains today--that she was incapable of fighting him off as she was slipping in and out of consciousness. Shortly thereafter she went to the police but the then DA refused to press criminal charges for "lack of evidence." Philadelphia has a new DA that reviewed the case including testimony and evidence gleaned from the civil suit settlement and filed charges. Why the change? Well, one must consider the likelihood that this woman would have consented to sexual advances from a man--any man--if she had not been drugged. The victim is a gay female who was in a relationship with a female at the time of the incident.
  15. You obviously don't know what I'm talking about as evidenced by your lack of cogent replies. You don't appear to have even read this portion of David's eBook, including illustrations, where he discusses it. I do not believe this is an intellectually honest approach. If you have, in fact, read the eBook, then I can only conclude you are deliberately ignoring what David presents as it is damning to your position, you have closed your mind, or you simply don't have the ability to comprehend it.
  16. Moreover, Speer's examples (of two X-rays) are irrelevant. Mantik already discussed (and demonstrated) this issue in his e-book, to wit: On the JFK lateral skull X-ray, the frontal bone appears to be intact, but on the AP skull X-ray, it is clearly not intact (much of the right side is missing). Therefore, as David has repeatedly said time and again: on a single X-ray, the human eye is not sensitive enough to discern how much bone is missing. So QED--directly from the X-rays in question!
  17. Pat: Either you didn't read David's response or you read it and are deliberately ignoring his response. This is misleading to those reading the thread. Let me ask, why does the left lambdoid suture abruptly terminate 2 to 3 cm to the left of the midline? Dr. Chesser confirmed Dr. Mantik's description of the left lambdoid suture, and this is just one additional finding to support an occipital skull defect extending to the left of the midline.
  18. From Millicent Cranor: Greg, here is my response to the comment you sent me by Pat Speer: Not one forensic radiologist has come forward to REBUT Mantik's findings either. Now why is that? Rebuttal of conspiracy theorists -- whether valid or not -- is always encouraged, even rewarded, by the establishment. As most of us know, the opposite is true of those who support it. I know of three diagnostic radiologists who find much of Mantik's work persuasive - but they would never go public on such a touchy subject. By "touchy subject" I mean the alteration of X-rays. This is far more threatening to the Bad Guys than research disproving the Lone Nut Theory. Consider the purpose of the Lone Nut scenario: surely it is to deflect attention away from the real culprits. This deflection is now being accomplished by seemingly credible alternate scenarios that embrace conspiracy - but none likely to lead back to those responsible. Milicent Cranor
  19. I agree, Jon. However, I do not disparage the work contained in Talbot's book. That's not the reason why I don't place it as high on the list. The difference is that Talbot's focus is on reporting political / historical information that is potentially subject to at least some bias (even if he is correct). The work of Mantik (and now Chesser) is based on hard, and some would say "cold," scientific DATA. For instance, one cannot say with certainty that if Dulles betrayed JFK at the BOP, and JFK fired Dulles for it, then Dulles plotted the assassination. -- In other words it is not an exact science. But, one can say with certainty, that: 4.52658 + 7.21479 = 11.74137 -- In other words it is an exact science that is replicable provided that those conducting the experiments and taking the measurements are themselves competent and commit no errors. Indeed that is the very reason for others to make a good faith attempt at replication. It would verify or refute the findings. That a qualified, Board Certified Neurologist (Chesser) did, in fact, replicate the findings of Mantik serves to verify Mantik's conclusions unless or until other qualified individuals (at least one) attempt replication and discover errors.
  20. Very well summarized, Sandy. Indeed, overexposure results in darker x-rays not brighter. As far as the contrast issue is concerned, you may be talking about the HSCA copy of the x-rays. It has been posited that prior to public release they purposely produced copies of the x-rays with extra contrast (lower exposure?) to make some portions easier to see for the eyes of untrained lay persons. I believe that this is a possibility, but have no way of knowing which copies of the x-rays you saw.
  21. Hey Bob, I agree with you in principle. I also like the word you chose: Forced. Indeed, let's not forget that Mantik's critics are quick to point out, although it is irrelevant, that David is not a diagnostic radiologist.* -- Yet when I point out that Pat Speer lacks any credentials or experience in these fields I am accused of unfairly dismissing his views. * The critics allude to this lack of a specific credential as somehow negatively impacting Mantik's ability to properly interpret x-rays, but never explain how, notwithstanding his related qualifications as a physicist, a Board Certified Radiation Oncologist, and a practicing medical doctor with many decades of experience reading and interpreting x-rays.
  22. I believe David cites nine MD's in his e-book, but let me double check. I just spoke with Mili on the phone and she is checking. However, she said, "In any event the sworn testimony of the Chief Neurosurgeon, Kemp Clark, who had the most relevant credentials than all the rest put together--and who got the best look at the back of the head--is alone worth more than 50 others. And he told the WC that he saw cerebellum." She is sending me more material on this issue later today. I will post it when I receive it. Mili also said: "That was only the number of doctors I quoted because of the good details they gave – but others could also have commented on it."
×
×
  • Create New...