Greg Burnham

No, David, I am not willing to discuss it further here. It seems that too often we get into pissing matches about that subject rather than discussions. If you truly consider me "such a learned student of the Prouty POV" as you stated above, then I would think that disputing what I report would be an inappropriate approach to broadening your own understanding of Prouty's POV. Alas, both you and Cliff have demonstrated on my forum that you very firmly disagree with my beliefs, those of Fletch, or both in this regard. Fine, that is your prerogative. However, I don't think there is anything to gain by rehashing it here. Suffice it to say that even the False Sponsors should never be viewed as extraneous or non-essential personnel. They, too, are vitally important and often are enormously powerful. They can control almost everything it would seem...except the concealment of their own identity.

David, Thank you for not corrupting the integrity of the original thread from which you took your initial quote for this thread. Although I disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate the etiquette.

Understood and thanks.

You're welcome, Jim. No, I didn't attend this year so I can't give a summary. In fact, this is the first anniversary in many years that I didn't give a presentation at one JFK Conference or another. However, I agree with you that these findings would be very important to include (or even feature) in any future documentaries on the subject. No matter the tone of the "self educated" critic's comments that have thus far been offered here--or the dissenting views on what the findings may or may not mean--still, these lesser opinions are just that: uneducated opinions. They have no effect on the SCIENCE, which was replicated. Irrespective of the ability (or inability as the case may be) of the eye witnesses to keep their stories self-consistent, what they witnessed must be taken along with these findings. Where the eyewitness statements are at odds with what the science proves, then the eyewitnesses are mistaken or the evidence was tampered prior to the eyewitnesses coming into contact with it. It is not a matter of: "If the eyewitnesses are correct then the science is faulty." It is a matter of replication. If these findings are replicable, as Dr. Chesser has shown they are, then they stand on their own merit irrespective of witness testimony to the contrary. However, where there are witnesses whose statements tend to support the SCIENCE and refute other witness' statements, then, again the SCIENCE prevails. The correct explanation, then, would be one that incorporates both the SCIENTIFIC findings and the eyewitness statements. Where multiple eyewitness reports contradict each other, then the SCIENCE must be considered more reliable. Any who doubt or question the science should seek to replicate the findings themselves or in the company of a qualified expert(s).

The nameless, faceless, and stateless Sponsors.

I spent another afternoon with David last week in Carlsbad. We discussed his latest presentation in Dallas. I have summarized it in this article on the main site. Not only has another doctor, Michael Chesser, MD., confirmed David's optical densitometry measurements from the post-mortem autopsy X-rays in the National Archives, but he went a step further. Dr. Chesser also took optical densitometry measurements from JFK's pre-mortem X-rays at the JFK Library in Boston. Do you think they match? Find out here: JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent

ROFLMAO!

David Mantik told me a few days ago that at this year's Lancer Conference Buell Wesley Frazier denied that Oswald was anywhere near the front of the TSBD, on the steps, or was Doorman. Frazier is an eyewitness who was there, who knew Oswald, and was in a position to know if LHO was there or not. Frazier was unequivocal about it.

That is a great suggestion, along the lines of my thinking, but I plan to do something even better, Bob. Instead of some "Panel of Qualified Pathologists" bought and sold by prof. Blakey (*), working under powerful pressure, I insist that this case must be solved by The People. What I plan to do is join all the LinkedIn forums which are related to X-Rays, medical imaging, radiology, CT, etc. (there are many, some with 10s of thousands subscribers) and the responsibility of issuing an opinion falls on those professionals. As usual, hopefully my heroes -the top universities- will be involved with their best tools: open, collaborative science and peer-reviewing protocols. -Ramon (*) With the one honorable exception of somebody who has personal and professional integrity: Dr. Cyril Wecht. ps: See a related post that I placed in several of those forums: Ramon, I spent the day with David Mantik yesterday. He has 3 negatives of JFK's skull X-ray from the National Archives. As negatives, they can be projected. Please check for more information on how you might use them on my forum later today or tomorrow.

It just ran out...

Cliff, I didn't mention your dismissal from my forum out of respect for your feelings. But now that you broached the subject, let me simply say that your penchant for hijacking threads by commandeering them to your own pet theory was not something I could continue to allow on my forum. That, coupled with recalcitrance and your stubborn refusal to admit error earned you the boot. I see that has not dissuaded you from disrupting and hijacking threads elsewhere. No problem, as I don't make the rules here. However, it's times like this when I remember why I don't visit too often. But that's just me.

Cliff, You and I have gone round and round on this topic many times. By that I mean: "Round and round on the circular logic Ferris Wheel." As Jim noted, you seem to want to argue for its own sake. Although Jim and I don't see 100% eye-to-eye on this topic, the differences are mostly negligible. Having said that, you are correct that there was never any contingency plan for the BOP that would have involved direct US military intervention as far as JFK was concerned. Not at the end. Not at its inception. Not during the middle planning phases. Never. Direct US intervention was NEVER a fall back position. However, within the "power structure" of the National Security State there was a "contingency plan" that attempted to usurp the authority of the President of the United States. It is also true that at least one aircraft carrier had been moved (without proper authorization) into a strike force position to support the landing at the BOP. This is a smoking gun, as well as an indication of what was being attempted. The original BOP Operation was successfully sabotaged (by canceling the pre-dawn airstrikes) for a reason. Was it simply for the purpose of "failure for its own sake?" Nope. The purpose of the sabotage was to place the young, new POTUS in a double-bind; between a rock and a hard place: the Scylla and Charybdis. It was anticipated that he would refuse introducing US military into the operation as it was both a violation of International Law and there was no contingency plan for it. However, once he was made aware of the desperate plight of Brigade 2506, the conspirators hoped he would cave with respect to International Law. If so, there would only be two things lacking to motivate JFK to send in US air support. First, lack of a contingency plan remained as a huge obstacle to US intervention. And second, but most importantly: As far as JFK knew, no assets were within range to offer support. However, since the needed aircraft had been unexpectedly maneuvered into position, the necessary assets were, in fact, available. This would therefore clear a path for JFK to order direct US military action. And, it would have worked, had JFK been a lesser man. So Cabell made the case from Dean Rusk's home on the morning of the BOP after it was too late to hope for success without direct US intervention. As it turned out, the Agency's contingency plan to force the hand of an autonomous Commander-in-Chief failed.

Agreed.

Update: I have successfully increased the global image upload capacity for all members of my forum as well as the individual size limit per image. Thank you for your patience.

Not so. I have asked several of the members who post large graphics regularly if they have the issue and the answer is no. None of them use a third party service. You are correct that there may be others who have the same upload limit, but if they only post text they wouldn't know about it and neither would I. Going forward if you want to discuss my forum's upload issues or anything else about my forum let's do it there not here.

Update: My solution failed. It only worked for the other member who tried it because they had enough space available for the small test image's size. This problem might be related to both forums' software updates. Sometimes updates "fix what ain't broke" until they break something. I'm still searching for a solution.

Greg: How can clicking a button that says "post" be a user error? How was I able to post this, with a very small image? -Ramon F Herrera Internet Pioneer and Co-Founder while at MIT System Administrator for 30 Years Holder of 2 Computer-Related Engineering Degrees Author of Forum Software Ramon and all, My apologies to Ramon for assuming that this glitch was user error. It was not. I'd also like to thank you, Ramon, for your persistence, without which the problem would not yet have been resolved.

Evan, Ramon has yet to confirm with me if I was successful in fixing the glitch for him on my forum. However, if I'm right, you should check the uploader settings in his profile from the admin panel under "Manage members." It should be set on "default uploader." It might be set on "flash uploader" now. The only two members of my forum that had the same problem also were the only two with the uploader set to flash. So I am assuming this will fix it, but I don't know for sure yet. It's also interesting that this setting should have automatically defaulted to "default," rather than "flash" if you get my drift. I don't know why it didn't. [edit: my spellcheck "corrected" Evan and changed it to Even]

Ramon, I just found the glitch! Try it again it should work fine.

Let's have this conversation in private. Use the PM on my forum or email me. Thanks. I will delete the fake account as it is a violation of forum policy.

Well, in any event, I hope that the uploading feature gets resolved for you. I know it must be frustrating. I will keep my radar sharp in case there is a solution I have missed. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Ramon, I don't know, but I do not believe the issue is on my end. Sorry that I can't figure out the answer for you. According to your credentials, you must have worked heavily on creating the internet with Al Gore then. Perhaps you knew either my wife's dad who graduated from MIT with a doctorate degree in engineering or her eldest brother who did the same? Probably not. It's a big campus. As for your original question, you asked if I used this forum as a reference for mine. I did not. We had the original JFKresearch Assassination Forum (Rich dellaRosa'a) running on this same or similar IPB software when the software first came out. We started that forum in1998 using different software but then immediately changed to IPB when it became available. That was about a half dozen years or more before this forum was even started! So the answer is still no. I did not reference this forum when building my new one. I modeled it after our original forum from the early 2000's.

It is user error.

No I did not.

Hi Ramon, As I stated on my forum, there is no bandwidth limitation there. I have only received reports from two members indicating they are unable to upload images directly into their post. I have never had any issue with it and I have uploaded many, many images (literally hundreds). One of our founding members, Phil Dragoo, has uploaded dozens of images without any problems, as well. The only other person experiencing this problem is also a founding member. I mention that to remove any question as to whether or not having the "founding member status" effects the uploading capability. It does not. Even here at the EF I have uploaded a lot of images over the years (in my 2,000+ posts) and have had no issues with it. It says I can still upload up to 86.79MB. I am going to test uploading an image right now to make sure--after which time I will delete the image to preserve bandwidth. I will report on its success or failure after I remove the image to preserve space. Test image is about 68kb: