Blair Dobson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525 I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters. Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals". A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical.I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types... A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either...I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like... can anyone get me a list? just curious... Edited May 26, 2013 by Blair Dobson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525 I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters. Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals". A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical. I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types... A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either... I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like... can anyone get me a list? just curious... "(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blair Dobson Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 (iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. -this happens here all the time. if it isn't going to be enforced, don't quote it. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. -this happens here all the time. if it isn't going to be enforced, don't quote it. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. -this happens here all the time. if it isn't going to be enforced, don't quote it. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. -this happens here all the time. if it isn't going to be enforced, don't quote it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum." -this is irrelevant to the question here. I'm askin a serious question. Let me rephrase: are there any professionals on the board here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blair Dobson Posted May 26, 2013 Author Share Posted May 26, 2013 "(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum." so, translated: it's a free for all , this rule here is for some and not for others and regadless of how insane and illogical a post is, it's ok becuse we wouldn't want to offend anyone... keep in mind it's ok to call people CIA shills or paid disinformation agents, dig up background on someones credentials and post it, but it's not ok to actually ask questions. peoples opinions should be treated as gospel, even though they have no basis in truth or fact. call someone anything under the sun, but don't you DARE call them a xxxx... ok i get it... so this IS a fan fiction board...I wasn't sure... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525 I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters. Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals". A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical. I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types... A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either... I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like... can anyone get me a list? just curious... Maybe you could start the ball rolling, Blair. Who are you and what are your qualifications? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 "(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum." so, translated: it's a free for all , this rule here is for some and not for others and regadless of how insane and illogical a post is, it's ok becuse we wouldn't want to offend anyone... keep in mind it's ok to call people CIA shills or paid disinformation agents, dig up background on someones credentials and post it, but it's not ok to actually ask questions. peoples opinions should be treated as gospel, even though they have no basis in truth or fact. call someone anything under the sun, but don't you DARE call them a xxxx... ok i get it... so this IS a fan fiction board...I wasn't sure... It's true that the rules are guidelines, and not consistently or evenly enforced. And yet, it's still probably the best forum on the assassination running, with a variety of knowledgeable members. And, yes, it's also true that few of those posting here are "professionals," writing about their field of expertise. But there's nothing surprising about this situation. Few "professionals" have ever shown much interest in the case, and those that have have often written about subjects beyond their expertise... It's not in the interest of professionals and experts to question the foundation of the society that bestows upon them their status. The assassination only got re-investigated in the 70's because a few members of congress suspected the mafia and/or Castro. The case would never have been re-opened if those calling the shots thought it would lead to Johnson, the Pentagon, the CIA, or any combination of the three. I joined a radiology forum at one point, and asked its members what they thought of Kennedy's x-rays. Two members told me they'd been trained by Fred Hodges, and would defer to whatever he told the Rockefeller Commission. When I finally got to read Hodges' report, however, I discovered that Hodges was the only radiologist to say he saw signs of an entrance on the back of Kennedy's head in the location described at autopsy. When I went back to the forum, and asked these members if that meant they disagreed with the most recent official story holding that the bullet entered 4 inches higher than described at autopsy, they failed to respond. This, unfortunately, is quite typical. I've received supportive emails over the years from professional historians, neurophysicists, neurology professors, radiologists, and x-ray techs. None for attribution. Chicken salad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 from the thread here http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2243&page=25#entry274525 I've seen over the years a number of people claiming to be "experts". From both sides, the nutters and the non nutters. Reading their theories and methodology, looking at the way they handle the information and resulting critiques, I have yet to see that many "professionals". A lot of basement researchers, dogmatic dilletantes, opinionated nutters (ct or ln regardless) goin on about what they know, how they know it and how they are more interested in "winning" and argument than being factual, correct or logical. I'm curious as to how many PHD's and proffessionals in the fields thay are discussing are actually participating here and in other places... actual doctors, actual forensic folks, actual ballistics types... A history teacher with a degree in Spanish literature doesn't count and retired spooks don't count either... I mean people talking about ballistics with a job in that field and related scholarly accolaides accredations and the like... can anyone get me a list? just curious... Maybe you could start the ball rolling, Blair. Who are you and what are your qualifications? Good morning, Ray. How are you this fine morning, my friend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Mitcham Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site. "Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning? Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides.Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides?Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides?Mr. SPECTER. Yes.Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket.Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231?Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then.Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was - Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range.Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. " What happened to the hundred frames? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Cearfoss Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) From Ray Mitcham: "Maybe you could start the ball rolling, Blair. Who are you and what are your qualifications?" Good question. And the answer is . . . .?? Edited May 26, 2013 by Steve Cearfoss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Kingsbury Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 My definition of a professional . Someone who gets paid for their services regardless of what happens to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Hi Bob, Feeling fine. Good to hear from you again. Herb Blenner has posted an interesting comment on Duncan's site. "Mr. SPECTER. I have just one other question, Governor. With respect to the films and the slides which you have viewed this morning, had you ever seen those pictures before this morning? Governor CONNALLY. I had seen what purported to be a copy of the film when I was in the hospital in Dallas. I had not seen the slides. Mr. SPECTER. And when do you think you were hit on those slides, Governor, or in what range of slides? Governor CONNALLY. We took - you are talking about the number of the slides? Mr. SPECTER. Yes. Governor CONNALLY. As we looked at them this morning, and as you related the numbers to me, it appeared to me that I was hit in the range between 130 or 131, I don't remember precisely, up to 134, in that bracket. Mr. SPECTER. May I suggest to you that it was 231? Governor CONNALLY. Well, 231 and 234, then. Mr. SPECTER. The series under our numbering system starts with a higher number when the car comes around the turn, so when you come out of the sign, which was - Governor CONNALLY. It was just after we came out of the sign, for whatever that sequence of numbers was, and if it was 200, I correct my testimony. It was 231 to about 234. It was within that range. Governor Connally set a clever trap when he identified frames of the 130's as showing when he was shot. Specter took the bait and suggested 231 as showing the shot. Apparently shaken by his mistake, Specter mindlessly acknowledged that the numbering system starts when the car comes around the turn before leading Connally to relate the time of his wounding to emergence from behind the sign. This turn of the car is not seen in our copy of the Zapruder film. " What happened to the hundred frames? Worth keeping handy: Was Muchmore’s film shown on WNEW-TV, New York, on November 26, 1963? (# 230) Posted 20 December 2009 - 03:54 PM Features in Zapruder public version 1 (Zpv1) absent from or different to Zapruder public version 2 (Zpv2): 1) Presidential limousine turning left from Houston onto Elm 2) No street sign interposed between camera and President at moment of impact of first bullet 3) Shooting took place further up Elm St towards Overpass, either opposite (or “abreast” of) Zapruder, or beginning at the steps leading up to the grassy knoll 4) Connolly’s white shirt visibly covered in blood following impact of shot 5) JFK’s head went forward in response to impact of head shot Elements of Zpv1 (1) to (5) described in following: 1) Presidential limousine filmed turning left from Houston onto Elm: • Abraham Zapruder on WFAA-TV, at 2:10pm CST, November 22, 1963: transcript: http://www.jfk-info.com/wfaa-tv.htm • Dan Rather, CBS radio & TV, 251163: http://www.i-accuse....dd_Hotelet.html • UPI (New York), “Film Showing Assassination Is Released,” The Valley Independent, (Monessen, Pennsylvania), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 5 (description of film shown on WNEW-TV, NY, at 00:46hrs, November 26, 1963) • Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1 • Warren Report (U.S. Government Printing Office (1964), p.98 • Roy Kellerman, 090364 (2WCH91): http://jfkassassinat...ny/kellerma.htm • Mark Lane. Rush to Judgment: A Critique of the Warren Commission’s Inquiry into the Murders of President John F. Kennedy, Officer J. D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald (London: The Bodley Head Ltd., 1966), p.66, footnote 2 2) No street sign interposed between camera and President at moment of impact of first bullet: • Dallas Morning News, “Photographer Sells Pictures of Assassination for $25,000,” November 24, 1963 • Dan Rather, CBS radio & TV, 251163 (Richard Trask. Pictures of the Pain, p.87): http://www.i-accuse....dd_Hotelet.html • Associated Press (Dallas), "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3 • UPI (New York), “Film Showing Assassination Is Released,” The Valley Independent, (Monessen, Pennsylvania), Tuesday, November 26, 1963, Page 5 (description of film shown on WNEW-TV, NY, at 00:46hrs, November 26, 1963) • UPI (Dallas), “Movie Film Shows Murder of President,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.3 (4 star edition) • Express Staff Reporter (New York, Monday), “The Man Who Got the Historic Pictures,” Daily Express, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.10 • John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20 • Arthur J. Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), “Movies Reconstruct Tragedy,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, (Evening edition), November 27, 1963, section 2, p.1 • “The Man Who Killed Kennedy,” Time, December 6, 1963, p.29 • Abraham Zapruder (7WCH571): http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm • William Manchester, Look magazine, 040467; Death of a President (London: Pan, paperback, 1968), p.234 3) Shooting took place further up Elm St towards Overpass, either opposite (or “abreast” of) Zapruder, or beginning at the steps leading up to the grassy knoll: • Associated Press (Dallas), "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3 • John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20 • Abraham Zapruder, 7WCH571: http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm • Harold Feldman, “Fifty-one witnesses: The Grassy Knoll,” The Minority of One, March 1965, p.17 • John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20 4) Connolly’s white shirt visibly covered in blood following impact of shot: • Dan Rather, CBS, Radio & TV, 251163: http://www.etcfilmun...om/iaccuse.html 5) JFK’s head went forward in response to impact of head shot: • Dan Rather, CBS, Radio & TV, 251163 (Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 1994, p.87):http://www.etcfilmun...om/iaccuse.html • Associated Press (Dallas), "Movie Film Depicts Shooting of Kennedy,” Milwaukee Journal, November 26, 1963, part 1, p.3 • UPI (Dallas), “Movie Film Shows Murder of President,” Philadelphia Daily News, Tuesday, 26 November 1963, p.3 (4 star edition) • John Herbers, “Kennedy Struck by Two Bullets, Doctor Who Attended Him Says,” New York Times, November 27, 1963, p.20 • Cartha DeLoach, Hoover’s FBI: The Inside Story by Hoover’s Trusted Lieutenant (1995), p.139: http://www.kenrahn.c...Alteration.html Most of the newspaper articles cited above can be found in the thread Eleven early print descriptions of the Zapruder film:http://educationforu...?showtopic=8953 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: Shelly Fiester (sp?) - blood splatter Craig - photography Evan Marshall - homicide investigation Greg Burnham - dignitary protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Rigby Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: Shelly Fiester (sp?) - blood splatter Craig - photography Evan Marshall - homicide investigation Greg Burnham - dignitary protection Sorry to see you go, Len, but I do admire your consistency... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 (edited) Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Oh, and who determined you to be the elector of experts for the JFK assassination? I seem to recall Roland Zavada putting you in your place some years ago, right on this very forum... Edited May 26, 2013 by David G. Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted May 26, 2013 Share Posted May 26, 2013 Blair and I aren't exactly buddies but he is asking a legitimate question. AFAIK the only people with technical qualifications relevant to the assassination are: ... Craig - photography ... LMFAO! Redd Foxx just turned over in his grave... Bring it on davie, but then again you don't have the 'chops'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now