-
Posts
2,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Greg Burnham
-
-
This thread is more than a bit ironic. I was in Dallas and saw Dr. Mantik's and Dr. Chesser's presentations.
1. Several years ago, on this very forum, I pointed out to Dr. Fetzer that the "white patch" noted by Dr. Mantik on the x-rays did not cover the very back part of the skull, where most CT's presume the fatal wound was located. He double-checked this with Dr. Mantik and Dr. Mantik told him I was correct. Since that time, Dr. Mantik has repeated this conclusion a number of times, at the 2013 Wecht Conference, on the CTKA website, and then again in Dallas. So David Von Pein is incorrect. Mantik's conclusion the x-rays were altered is not directly related to his belief the back of the head was blown out.
2. In fact... In recent years, Mantik has taken to claiming the x-rays, which most CTs automatically dismiss due to their mistaken belief Mantik has claimed they were faked to hide a blow-out wound on the back of the head...DOES show a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and are PROOF this wound existed, and therefore a conspiracy. Now, I've been following this with great interest, because it's bizarre beyond belief. Mantik now claims the x-rays prove conspiracy...in two ways. One is that they show a large blow-out wound in the middle of the back of the head. Two is that they show things--such as the white patch and the 6.5 mm fragment, that could only have been added through alteration.
3. It was some unease then that I went to Dallas to watch Mantik's latest presentation...in which he claimed the Harper fragment was blown-out the middle of the back of Kennedy's head. I had already committed to talking about the x-rays, and was unsure if I could keep my mouth shut should Mantik receive an overwhelming response while pushing some stuff I feel certain is inaccurate. He spoke on Saturday, and received a decent response. He was followed by Dr. Chesser, who said he'd recently visited the archives and had confirmed much of Mantik's OD measurements, and that he agreed with the bulk of Mantik's conclusions. (I don't recall if he said he agreed with the bit about the x-rays showing a large hole on the back of the head, but seem to think he did not.) He did, however, offer up one bit of detail that led me to believe he was sincere in his embrace of Mantik's findings. He claimed he confronted the archives over one of Mantik's findings--that there appeared to be emulsion over the writing on the x-rays they brought him, which proved they weren't the originals. He said that after he pointed this out, the archives staff grumpily brought out some x-rays in which the writing was on top of the emulsion...the originals. In other words, Chesser claimed he saw the originals, and suggested that Mantik had not. I don't think he would have made this claim if he was just there to prop up Mantik.
4. In any event, Bethesda witness James Jenkins was up next. Mantik interviewed Jenkins and William Law about a series of interviews they'd conducted some time back... The night before they discussed and played some of a new blu-ray of Jenkins discussing Kennedy's wounds with Paul O'Connor, Jim Sibert, Jerrol Custer, and Dennis David. On Saturday, if I recall, they played some of an interview in which several of Kennedy's honor guard were reunited with Jenkins and some of the Bethesda staff, to talk about the events of 11-22-63. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins afterward, and he confirmed, yet again, that the back of Kennedy's head between his ears was intact, but with shattered skull beneath the scalp. I then explained to him that ever since he spoke on the 50th, some have tried to use his words to suggest the back of the head was blown out, and that Horne and Mantik have tried to put this all together and have come up with Humes' performing some sort of pre-autopsy alteration of the head wounds. At this, Jenkins shook his head in disgust, and said something along the lines of "What are you gonna do? People are gonna think whatever they want to think." He then told me and several witnesses that he was with the body from its arrival until the beginning of the autopsy, and that the events described by Horne didn't happen at any morgue he'd been to. I then sought clarification by asking him if he meant that there was another morgue room down the hall that could have been used to do such a thing, and he looked at me like I was flat-out stupid and said there was but the one room where they could have done anything, and that it didn't happen there.
5. Next up was the producer of a new documentary on the Parkland Doctors. "Oh boy", I thought, "here we go. Some guy no one's ever heard of is gonna say he saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and everyone is going to ooh and ahh." But that's not what happened at all. Three doctors came onstage and told their stories: Salyer, Loeb, and Goldstrich, if I recall. Salyer was quite adamant that the head wound was on the temporal region in front of the ear, Loeb said it was on the top of the head, and Goldstrich never commented on the head wound. It was around this time, moreover, that I looked up and saw William Newman standing on the side of the room. I'd spoken to Newman before and he had confirmed his earliest statements and said that he saw a wound by the ear, and had failed to see one on the back of the head.
The thought then occurred that I'd slipped into an alternate universe. I mean, here I was at a convention dominated by conspiracy theorists, the majority of whom fervently believe the medical evidence was faked and that we should believe the eyewitnesses, and here were four witnesses in the room claiming to have seen Kennedy's head wound, all of whom were claiming to have seen it in a location that runs counter to where most CTs think the wound was located. And here was Dr. Mantik saying we should believe there was a wound in the location proposed by most CTs...because the x-rays prove it!!!!
In the minds of many of those in attendance at the conference, everything had been reversed... The authenticity of the x-rays now trumped the accuracy of the witnesses!!!
Welcome to Bizarro-World!!!
I received this email from Dr. Michael Chesser in response to Pat Speer's comments [above]. The relevant portion is posted here with his permission:
Hi Greg,
I've attached my presentation with notes. I'm very disappointed to read Pat's
comments. I didn't say that David had not seen the original x-rays - I have no
idea where he [speer] got that. My slide covering the left lateral skull x-ray
describes what happened at NARA when I viewed that film. The NARA personnel
overheard me dictating, and when I dictated my thoughts that the T shape was
covered by emulsion, they immediately left the room and came back with Martha
Murphy, who told me that a mistake had been made, and that I had been looking at
the HSCA copies. She appeared upset - I thought at the time that she was upset
with the personnel in the room, but I of course can't know what she was
thinking. The T shape appeared odd, and it lit up and stood out from the
background when I would shine my flashlight from one angle, but I couldn't
actually see a wax mark on the surface of the emulsion. I still don't know how
to interpret this. I can see how David concluded there is emulsion over the T
shape, because the surface is smooth.
I agree with David that there is an occipital skull defect, separate from the
white patch, and I think it is probably where the Harper fragment was
located. What convinced me more than anything else is the appearance of the
scalp retraction photograph.
[end quote]
-
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.
-
Jim Di and Greg,
I admit to being a self-educated amateur when it comes to the assassination.
My post about who had the power to cause the x-rays to be fabricated was not intended to divert the discussion. It was intended to make the point that whoever caused the fabrication had to be someone beyond reach, both in the 1960s and in this decade.
Understood and thanks.
-
Greg:
Thanks a lot for this.
Its really neat that Dave got another doctor to go along with his compelling evidence on the x rays.
I have always thought that if we ever got a TV special on the ARRB, Mantik's stuff on this subject would be mandatory to be included. Because it is pretty easy to understand yet its scientifically based. Plus its visual.
BTW, Lancer sounded pretty good. Were you there? Can you give us a rundown?
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).
-
My point is, who had the power not only to order the killing of JFK, but also to order the cover-up of the killing?
The answer is, someone who had power in 1963-64.
The answer is someone who has power in 2015.
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
-
Now Dawn, perhaps you should consult with a legal expert before making a statement like that. Because I’m sure they’ll tell you that legally-speaking it is not very nice to call someone a lying person.
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.
-
If you have the x-rays of JFK's neck, you might want to have a qualified physician examine them. Photon also claimed that JFK was suffering severe osteoporosis of the vertebrae of the neck, to the point he claimed that JFK's neck was "immobile" in 1955.
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.
-
Greg:
You have the patience of a saint.
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.
-
That is not Manuel Aguilar, not Seymour, not Hall and not Harber. Sorry.
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.
-
It is user error.
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.
-
Ramon,
Are you still experiencing the same issue with the EF? We encourage people to link to Photobucket et al but you should still have ample space available to you to upload here.
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.
-
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,
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.
Sponsors are not - by Mr. Evica's definition - unknowable
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
I wish you both the best of luck in your pursuit of the Sponsors. It is a different path than my own.