Jump to content
The Education Forum

Paul Bacon

Members
  • Posts

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Paul Bacon

  1. 19 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

    What is the correct name of the Mountain top in Maine that we are all referring to?

    And I have seen a few other news reports that the temperature was even colder than the 102 below I cited.

    104 to 108 below ???

    Isn't that similar to temperatures on the moon and Mars?

    That Dennis Quaid science fiction disaster film "Day After Tomorrow." is looking less science fiction with each new record breaking cold wave sweeping lower and lower down from the North Pole.

     

    Joe, Mt. Katahdin, I believe, is the tallest mountin in Maine.  But you were right--all those low temp readings were on Mt. Washington.

    The news reports were all over the map with record temperatures reporting.  I heard our local tv. station say the low temp early Saturday morning, with wind chill, was -147, and that the record low was -155 in the late 1800's.  I wondered who was up there taking measurements?!

  2. 11 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

    Maine mountain top ( Mount Washington ) temperature yesterday...102 degrees BELOW zero!

    With the wind chill factor but still....!!!

    Maine does not have an illegal immigration problem.

    Wonder why?

     

    Joe--minor correction.  Mount Washington is in New Hampshire, but you're right about the temperature!!  It was -14* here on the ground :>)

  3. 9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

    More important is that Newman, Zapruder, and Kilduff pointed out the wound's location within a short time of the shooting, and all pointed to the right temple area--the location of the wound in the autopsy photos and films.

    Kilduff pointed to the entrance wound in his press conference announcing Kennedy's death.  That was the location of the "right temple area".  He was not pointing to indicate that ridiculous amorphous blob we see in the Zap film.

  4. 11 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

    Addendum:  I was listening to the deservedly famous Fillmore East live recording of In Memory of Elizabeth Reed today, and I saw an interesting comment at YouTube about the Allman Brothers Band using psilocybin. 

    Martin Buck:   "Some fun facts for those not in the know: The Allman Brothers Band loved spending time in Rose Hill cemetery in Macon, drifting away on magic mushrooms and playing. Dickie wrote this after "entertaining" Boz Scaggs' wife on a tombstone, and the inscription on this tombstone is the title for this track-- In Memory of Elizabeth Reed. The other unsung hero in this drama is Tom Dowd, who recorded these tracks in a truck behind the venue. His absolute mastery of technique and musical knowledge enabled him to splice together the highlights of three nights of recording into one double album. I have heard all the other versions of this masterpiece, including the raw tracks in their entirety, but the original released in 1971 is still the best, and fills the heart with awe and gratitude for the grandeur and vision of this epitome of Southern Rock at its finest."

     

    W.- I learned Duane's solo in IMOER about 8 or so years ago.  His solo was a compilation of two night's recordings, and I found the splice area.  For several measures there are actually 3 guitars you can hear.

    I feel the same as you about that song--absolutely my favorite ABB song.

    I too, was a Jerry Brown fan.  A very authentic man ...like Jimmy Carter.

  5. 17 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:
    Some people think Obama was our coolest President. Yeah, he was pretty cool. But Jimmy Carter is a President I could sit down and have some acid with. Call me "old school" but that's still a meaningful barometer to me!
     
    Queue to 2:00
     

     

     

     

    Ha! Orange Sunshine and the Allman Brothers ...I had that exact trip the summer after "Live at the Fillmore East" was released!  

  6. 5 hours ago, David Lifton said:

    When I have talked about changing the "medical facts" in the JFK case, I am referring to altering the wounds so as to create a false story of how JFK died.  (I am referring there to the geometry of the shooing (i.e., how many times JFK was hit, and from what direction etc.).  But that has nothing to do with "the Cuban government" per se. Yes, the Cuban government was dragged into this, but that was by implication; because LHO was framed for a murder he did not commit; and--once that case "emerged" -- LHO's prior political stance, his admiration of Castro, and his travels (attempting to go to Cuba etc.)  became pertinent.  DSL

    You've left me a little unclear.  Do you not buy the speculation that the original intent of the conspiritors, was to pin the blame on Cuba/Russia?

  7. Richard,

    David has suggested that altering medical evidence and the Z film was planned in advance.  If the assassination was to look like the Cubans did it, there would have been no need to do the alterations, and so not planned in advance.  The fact that these alterations were done, makes me think that the alterations weren't planned in advance and were hastily done.

    I'm just wondering what David thinks about that idea.

    15 hours ago, David Lifton said:

    Skipping many details and applying the lessons I learned to Dealey Plaza and the JFK assassination, certain insights became rather obvious (at least to me): one was that you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president, unless you also planned in advance to alter the medical evidence (i.e., the body) --via wound alteration and bullet removal -- so as to fabricate a false story about how the President had died.  Another insight: you could not "plan in advance" to murder the president (and control all civilian films) unless you arranged in advance to confiscate the key films, and be prepared to do some serious editing (again, using an optical printer). 

     

  8. 13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

    Bottom line: murdering JFK and preparing to fabricate a false story about his death could not be done without controlling at least two important pieces of evidence:  (a) his body; and (b) all bystander films.

    Many speculate that the murder of JFK was supposed to implicate the Cuban government in the triangulated fire with a few participants and that it was after-the-fact that the conspiritors changed the plan to then implicate a lone wolf.

    If the original plan was to implicate the Cuban government, then controlling the body and all bystander films would not have been necessary.

    So, I'm going to guess that those things were not planned in advance and were done in great haste after-the-fact.

    What are your thoughts on that DL?

  9. 16 hours ago, Chris Davidson said:

    The Willis photo(imo) provides a key measuring element that was not available in previous photos when I arrived at 5'3".

    You could say it was a top down measurement and as accurate as I could find at the time.

    The TSBD stair area was built level and plumb.

    I would suggest creating/adjusting a graphic with this in mind.

    Next, take the height difference(use pixels) between the Oswald-Frazier height lines and compare that to the height difference(use pixels) between the landing and next step down(referencing the red lines in Willis) and see what you get.

    This is what has bothered me for a long time because it made it appear that if Oswald is PrayerPerson, his legs would have to be longer, allowing him to be on that next step down.

    Using the Willis photo, knowing where that next step down is, I arrive at someone on the landing at 5'5 1/2" tall or someone on the next step down at 6' provided that last step is a 7" rise.

    I used 72.5" for BWF height, accounting for 1/2" shoe rise.

    LADYOrig2.gif

     

     

    Chris, that rise, to me, looks more like an 8" than a 7", but I don't have the ability to measure it--just going by eye.

    30 or more years ago it was quite common to have risers higher than what is usual these days (7"-7.5")--especially on exterior stairs.  Don't know how that may effect your thinking...

    If I remember correctly, Andrej may have taken the measurements used to create the model from a document listing dimensions of the doorway area.

  10. 3 hours ago, Andrej Stancak said:

    For the reasons explained here, I see not purpose in highlighting problems with every new lady identified in the doorway in historic photographs. No lady or man 5' 2 1/2'' would fit Prayer Man figure as that person would have to stand on the top landing causing incurable mismatches with Prayer Man figure in Darnell.

    Andrej, Chris Davidson is probably the only one in this thread who can appreciate the capabilities that the program you've used provide.  He does measurements inside photographs all the time.  I would love to see him corroberate your findings using his own methods.  I completely agree with you that the Prayerman figure is male.

    A side note:  I was a small time remodeling contractor and I "photo-matched" (using the program) pictures I'd taken of potential jobs a lot of times.  It took time, but it was worth it because I could virtually build the whole addition (or deck, etc.) sitting at home on my computer.  It was accurate enough that I could pre-cut parts without resorting to tape measures and plumb bobs hanging in thin air.

    Sketchup--architects use it all the time--is very accurate.  You've done great work.

  11. 1 hour ago, Andrej Stancak said:

    I may be wrong but it seems to me that the pink-dressed lady is a bit too short to match Prayer Man's figure.

    Andrej, I just want to make sure we're all talking about the same figure here.  The figure everyone's talking about is the figure between pink-dressed lady and the cop in front of her.  This figure would be on the inside of the glass doorway assembly.  We all agree with this, right?  Or am I wrong?

    BTW, I agree with you that the Darnell still is different than the still photo Alan Ford posted--particularly the angle of the arm holding something in front...

  12. 13 hours ago, David Lifton said:

    In particular, I'm surprised (and disappointed) that Niederhut is among those who subscribe to this hypothesis (I hesitate to use the term "theory").

    I'm suprised and disappointed that you're not seeing it.  I'm guilty of having had you on a pedastal.  Achitects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth would be a good place for you to start.  It doesn't take a Physics degree to see that something doesn't add up.

  13. 18 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

    While I have received veiled death threats ("Let me take you out in the woods so I can show you how easy it is to shoot a Carcano") and insults ("May you and yours burn in hell forever!") from those believing Oswald acted alone, the bulk of the insults I've received over the years have come from some zealous CTs, who just can't grasp that anyone can research this case and come to more nuanced conclusions than themselves. I remember receiving a series of emails from someone who was outraged by my "defense" of Gary Mack. I had said that Gary Mack was wrong about a lot of stuff, and had made tremendous mistakes, and was fairly closed-minded, but that he was in many ways an ally to the research community. And this set this guy off. He felt certain that Gary Mack was a paid disinformationist who knew the truth about the assassination (that there was more than one shooter) but had now switched sides and was covering it up. And he sent me numerous emails questioning my integrity, and calling me a this and that. Well, the zeal of some Prayer Man believers matches that of this Gary Mack hater. 

    Let me share a little story. As a teen I was determined to stretch my brain. I forced myself to read writers like Freud, Sartre and McLuhan, and study concepts like relativity and quantum mechanics. So, naturally, as a senior, I took a philosophy class. Well, within this class there was bit of a revolt. A dozen or so born-again Christian students tried to turn every discussion into being a discussion of religion, and the Bible. So, at one point the teacher decided there should be a debate about the existence of God. I volunteered to make the argument there was no God, or that we can not know if there is a God, or some such thing, while the true believers were to argue for the existence of God. I prepared myself by studying the arguments of Christian philosophers like Augustine, Aquinas, and DesCartes, if I recall. And felt ready. On the day of the "debate" however, the believers failed to put up much of a fight. Outside of the unmoved mover argument, they relied mostly on emotion ("What would be the point of life if there is no God?") and subjective interpretation of photos. That's right. For their grand finale, these guys presented photos of cloud formations they claimed were in the shape of Jesus and insisted these photos proved there was a God. I was like "What the hell?" The final photo, as I recall, was actually the worst. This cloud formation did in fact give the appearance of a man wearing a robe standing at attention. But here's the kicker. There was no head on this man. So I pointed out that there was no way we could know if this was actually Jesus, and they said "Aha! That's where faith comes in!" or some such thing. And then of course I pounced and showed that their argument for the existence of God was built on faith, and not on stone cold logic. 

    In any event, my experience with the Prayer Man faithful has been quite similar. They ardently believe they see Oswald in an image. Others including myself look at this same image and see someone who looks more like a frumpy woman. But they insist it must be Oswald, and have done their damnedest to make the case it was Oswald. But their case has not won the day. Many if not most of those following this conflict have decided to wait for better images before coming to a final conclusion. 

    So it's time those images are made available. Now, do I personally think these images will be conclusive? Uhh, no. I've been shown photos of clouds that people said were Jesus, and my TSBD TSD tells me the Prayer Man believers will continue to claim it's Oswald in the films, even if the clearest images prove their "man" was wearing a necklace and bracelets and carrying a purse. ("Well, Oswald was in drag, you see...")

    While you might think I am being facetious, moreover, sadly, I am not. This forum is polluted by hundreds of pages in which "believers" argued that it was Oswald in the Altgens photo. Never mind that it was Lovelady's face--his face had been added to the photo within minutes of the shooting in a CIA photo alteration trailer parked somewhere in the train yards, you see. And never mind that a number of photos and films from 11-22 proved Lovelady had been wearing the shirt worn by the man in the photo. These photos and films were obvious fakes. In one of these films, moreover, the Lovelady figure was not even Lovelady, and was more akin to a gorilla. 

    These arguments took up hundreds of pages and wasted hundreds if not thousands of hours. And killed what can only be assumed were millions of brain cells...

    I fear the Prayer Man argument has similarly jumped the rails. Which is why I'm trying to force the issue... 

    I will drop out of this thread, but check back in in a few months to see if any progress has been made. I'm betting there will not, but wouldn't mind losing this bet. 

     

     

    Yeah Pat, I do understand that you've put yourself out there for many years and have taken a lot of heat.  And that, because of your independance and tenacity, you end up asking uncomfortable questions that piss some people off.  I want you to know I have huge respect for your knowledge and independance.  I think what you do is important.

    Mostly I'm very curious about the information regarding the clearer version of Darnell (or was it Weigman, or both?).  I'd never heard this story before and I find it fascinating.

    When Andrej posted his work, about a year ago, with the program Sketchup (I used to be versed in it having been a building contractor), I was very taken with it.  The 3D capability gives us a lot of information that we wouldn't otherwise have.  Adding to it a clearer version of the photos he worked with, I believe, will give us even more circumstantial information, as Andrej suggests above.  Maybe the clearer version won't give us conclusive proof that Prayerman is Oswald, but it could go a long way in improving our understanding of the circumstances out on the front steps.

    Keep up your good work Pat.

     

  14. 6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

    The point, then, is that I'm hoping those pissed off by my questioning the evidence for Prayer Man will put their money where their mouth is, and receive and share the access to the films they claim is necessary to prove their case. 

    The way you've worded this sentance raises a question for me Pat.

    The only people I've seen "pissed off" by your questioning the evidence, are right here on this forum.  Are you saying the people who have the capability to receive and share the access are right here on this forum?  Who is bitching about you?

  15. 3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

    He suggested the clearer photos they saw were still unclear and did not prove anything (so why go to a lot of effort and spend big bucks to accomplish nothing). Not a suggestion they saw falsification.

    So why did "they" not make this information available to everyone?  --i.e. "We saw a crystal clear version and we still can't make out Oswald clearly."

    Not suggesting anything nefarious, but something is strange about it.

×
×
  • Create New...