Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Splendid Milicent Cranor


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Mil has e mailed me and said as the great Mark Twain did ages ago, that rumors of her passing have been greatly exaggerated. She writes for Russ Baker's site.

I don't think I said that, I just said she was a hidden jewel.  Who does not get enough recognition for what she does.

So here is one article by her on the whole Nicolas Nalli BS trying to explain the back and to the left rocketing of JFK's body.

 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/ 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is another double off the wall in left.

The whole mystery and the avoidance of George Burkley is another issue that has hit critical mass.

How this guy avoided being cross examined under oath is simply amazing.  Could you imagine him testifying after Finck got destroyed at the Shaw trial. The Justice Department might have invaded the court room.  "Holy crap they are going to find out what really happened to Kennedy!"

https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/17/kennedy-assassination-evidence-seen-jfks-doctor-suppressed/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brain photos show the right cerebellum to be slightly disrupted - could this be caused by a bullet passing through the right parietal area? The autopsy protocol also says there was some bruising of the brainstem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

How this guy avoided being cross examined under oath is simply amazing.

It really is. To me, it just screams conspiracy at a volume level that very few other things do in this whole case. He was the President's personal physician and the only medical professional to see Kennedy's body at Parkland and at Bethesda. There's only one reason that he wouldn't testify, only one possible reason: he wasn't going to support the official story. What he would have said under oath was not going to be favorable to the story of a lone shooter from behind. There's just no other reasonable way to interpret the lack of him testifying to the Warren Commission.

I have to admire him, even if he didn't come out and fully say what he knew for the historical record. He wouldn't be bullied or bow to what must have been the most considerable pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Burkley was avoiding being cross examined.  He was never called by the Warren Omission, for good reason, given their predetermined conclusion.  Through an attorney he tried to contact the HSCA, but they ignored his input.  Why?  Same reason six top level FBI agents from 1963 died in the 6 months leading into the HSCA in 1977/78 along with Roselli, Giancana De Mohrenschildt and more.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Specter did not call the Newmans nor Burkley.  Or Sibert and O'Neill.

IMO, that shows you who he was working for.  And how he knew what he was doing.

But I agree with Denny, Burkley would have been a quantum leap.  

I really mean what I said about if he had testified at the Shaw trail after Finck, I think everything would have been stopped cold. IIRC he went to work for LBJ after and he stayed with him until Johnson left.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mil has e mailed me and said as the great Mark Twain did ages ago, that rumors of her passing have been greatly exaggerated. She writes for Russ Baker's site.

I don't think I said that, I just said she was a hidden jewel.  Who does not get enough recognition for what she does.

So here is one article by her on the whole Nicolas Nalli BS trying to explain the back and to the left rocketing of JFK's body.

 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/ 

Excellent review article.

Why Luis Alvarez was willing to promote his 1976 Watermelon/jet propulsion pseudo-scientific model of the retrograde motion of JFK's head has always been a mystery to me.

I couldn't find any Education Forum threads about him.

Alvarez was, obviously, a great American physicist who made major contributions to our WWII military technology, including the Manhattan Project and radar technology that helped us destroy N-a-z-i U-boats in the Atlantic.

But why was he willing to publish his pseudo-scientific Watermelon paper in 1976, shortly after the American public finally got to see the Zapruder film?

Alvarez was a lifelong Republican, and a member of the Bohemian Grove set, with close ties to the U.S. military establishment.

My hunch is that some of Alvarez's associates in the U.S. government asked him in 1975 to help carry out the 1964 CIA executive order to do whatever was necessary to promote public acceptance of the Warren Commission Report.

He probably viewed his Watermelon paper as a "patriotic" duty.

Edited by W. Niederhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thompson's book is good on Alvarez.  In fact, its one of the high points of Last Second in Dallas.

The association between Paul Hoch and Alvarez is really interesting.

But its pretty clear that Alvarez would do the security state's bidding on the JFK cover up.

Jiggle effect, melons as skulls, acoustics. 

The last instance is almost funny.  Because Alvarez had no expertise at all in acoustics. But as Thompson points out, he essentially ran the commission that was out to discredit the HSCA verdict on that.  He told Barger, one of the very best in the field of acoustics, it does not matter what you say, I am voting against you.

Talk about a scientific approach.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thompson's book is good on Alvarez.  In fact, its one of the high points of Last Second in Dallas.

The association between Paul Hoch and Alvarez is really interesting.

But its pretty clear that Alvarez would do the security state's bidding on the JFK cover up.

Jiggle effect, melons as skulls, acoustics. 

The last instance is almost funny.  Because Alvarez had no expertise at all in acoustics. But as Thompson points out, he essentially ran the commission that was out to discredit the HSCA verdict on that.  He told Barger, one of the very best in the field of acoustics, it does not matter what you say, I am voting against you.

Talk about a scientific approach.

 

Thanks for the reference.  I haven't read Last Second in Dallas, but I have dissected a human cadaver, in med school. 

Anyone who thinks that a watermelon is comparable to a human skull doesn't know much about anatomy.

Think of the huge difference in force and displacement caused by a bullet striking a human skull vs. a bullet piercing a watermelon rind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/1/2021 at 4:43 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Mil has e mailed me and said as the great Mark Twain did ages ago, that rumors of her passing have been greatly exaggerated. She writes for Russ Baker's site.

I don't think I said that, I just said she was a hidden jewel.  Who does not get enough recognition for what she does.

So here is one article by her on the whole Nicolas Nalli BS trying to explain the back and to the left rocketing of JFK's body.

 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2018/05/31/scientist-neutralizes-jfks-back-and-to-the-left-or-does-he/ 

Thank you for introducing me to Milicent Cranor's writings. Her article about how a forum can be controlled by a small number of people using a variety of well tested techniques is chilling. 

 

https://whowhatwhy.org/2016/01/27/disinformation-part-1-how-trolls-control-an-internet-forum/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...