A Way to Tell if the Shots Came From Behind or the Side Front

[Greg Burnham]

Hi Brad,

Yes, that is from a radio show during which Jim Fetzer interviewed me. Although there are some relatively minor errors and/or omissions during the introduction (none of which effect the subject), my description is as thorough as I can be.

I'd like to take the opportunity to comment briefly on my own standards as to how this evidence should be treated.

Because I cannot go into more specific details as to the circumstances of the viewing(s), I do not expect others to: "Take my word for it." Indeed, even if I could be more specific, many might remain skeptical for reasons that they feel are legitimate. I can accept that and I hope that others can accept it, too.

After all, I would, more likely than not, be among those who are "suspiciously guarded" --at best--if the shoe were on the other foot.

Therefore I personally believe very strongly that without the (alleged) "other film" being openly revealed for public scrutiny -- an extremely unlikely scenario -- the "other film" should not be improperly "admitted" into evidence. Under such conditions, it cannot be relied upon as "proof" and should rarely be relied upon as any type of corroborative "Cite to Authority." The very foundation--upon which any such reliance could be properly permitted--is absent; namely, its very existence has not been sufficiently established for those objecting.

Even in my own opinion, since it has not been "entered into evidence" due to its absence, its utility is narrowly limited. That I happen to be someone who claims to have seen this evidence does not mean that I have the luxury of adhering to a lower standard than I would require of others if the situation was reversed.

That there are several eyewitnesses to such a film's existence could be considered significant by some, depending partly on the credibility of those eyewitnesses. Others would find "credibility" irrelevant without "seeing the evidence" for themselves. Such judgments--regarding the credibility of a particular witness--are just as often made arbitrarily as others are made after being well thought out. Even though they are almost contradictory, I find merit in each approach--so long as it is made in good faith.

For even IF we were to assume its existence, and further stipulate to its more true recordation of the events of November 22, 1963 than the extant version and further assume it did get released to the public...what difference will that make?

Whether or not the films are admissible--both the extant Z-film AND the "other film"--is irrelevant to me.

I have sufficient evidence that the official account is false without needing the "other film" to prove it. Since discussion of the "other film" has itself become a source of divisiveness, it distracts rather than clarifies. At this point, it has become extraneous, as well.

That's okay. I needed no further proof of conspiracy.

I have more than enough.

Edited April 12, 2015 by Greg Burnham

[Brad Milch]

Thanks for the response, Greg. I look at the situation as if I were waiting at the bottom of the mountain & Moses had just come down with the tablets. I wasn't up there with him to see & hear what transpired. His word was (and still is) good enough for me.

The elite few that saw the 'other' z-film gives hope that someday, someone, some agency or institution or some beneficiary of someone's death & inheritance will not guard the 'other' film like a dog guarding its bone & release it to the public to clarify history. Enslaving Americans' history is not what America is supposed to be about.

Best of luck to you now & in your future, Mr. Burnham. Your work on bringing out the truth of John Kennedy's savage ambush & death is a humanitarian act worthy of the Nobel prize IMHO.

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Brad Milch

[Greg Burnham]

You're welcome, Brad. And thank you very much for the kind words. I am humbled.

[David Andrews]

Not to stir this pot even more, but do Dan Rather's descriptions of Clint Hill's actions - quoted in Pat Speer's post #44, above - tend to make it seem (to people not able to see the Z-film) that Clint Hill was riding the rear bumper all through Dealey? Hill's run and leap are omitted.

Edited April 13, 2015 by David Andrews

[Kathleen Collins]

The fact is, MOST of us have NEVER seen any footage showing Clint Hill slapping Jackie.

To cite that he did, you must also be ready to produce a source for that. Otherwise, it comes off as someone's fantasy.

Where was it seen? Who saw it? Is there a written source, or was this someone's verbal statement? CAN IT BE VERIFIED?

Rich Dellarosa told me about it. We talked about it a lot. I never heard he slapped her, as this individual said. The film shows everything we don't see in the Z film. Rich was in the air force and saw it twice in a theater on a college campus. Another time the "other" film showed up on a TV show in the background. They accidently showed the wrong film. Burnham said he saw it too.

I did NOT see Clint Hill "slap" Jackie in the "other film" and I never have said that I did.

Moreover, I can assure the members of this forum that Rich dellaRosa did not claim that the film he saw showed Clint Hill slap Jackie. He never wrote that anywhere and he never mentions it in any interview, including his 2009 Black Op Radio interview.

I cannot claim to know what Rich told Ms. Collins. However, based on her false claim above: "Burnham said he saw it too...." I advise caution.

-------------

Kathy, I think it best of we choose to steer clear of each other. I will not address you, talk behind your back, or in any way disrespect you. I would appreciate the same courtesy. I only responded this time because you brought my name up and I needed to set the record straight. Let's leave it at that.

OK, I'll avoid you. I just want to say that I didn't say you saw the slap; apparently none of us did. It might have been on your website. I'll try to find it elsewhere. I meant you saw the "other" film, not the particular post I brought up.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

I am trying to find out if Clint Hill "slapped" or "hit" Jackie Kennedy when she was on the trunk. This is from History.net. I could not find the entire quote, but this is what I got:

"Jun 12, 2006 - President and Mrs. Kennedy embark on a political fence-mending mission to ... Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, assigned to Mrs. Kennedy, describes the morning ..... immediately after the first explosion, hitting me on the shoulder, and shouted to all ... Almost in the same moment in which he hit or pushed me..."

This came from History.net, but wasn't elaborated on.

Kathy C

[Ron Ecker]

FWIW didn't General McHugh claim that he slapped LBJ on Air Force One to bring him back to his senses?

[Brad Milch]

Howdy Kathy & Kathleen:

During the JFK 50th TV specials & several interviews & speaking engagements that were published online shortly after, Clint Hill described 'pushing', 'placing' & 'putting' Jackie back in her seat when he arrived at the limo following the headshot. The 'slapping' Jackie may have come from YouTube; there is a mixture of serious research & garbage posted on Y/T concerning all aspects of the JFK assassination. I've run across videos accusing Jackie of shooting JFK in the throat, John Connally pulling a pistol out from under his hat, Nellie shot JFK for ignoring her hitting on him, etc. Don't forget the Greer & Kellerman did it stuff either. Garbage analysis is counter-productive & helps flood the history of the event with factoids that are difficult to remove from the public's perception of the history that occurred in Dallas & Washington 51 years ago. Kathleen may have picked up something from any number of such Y/T videos. Internet radio interviews too.

BTW, Kathy, did you know the Rolling Stones song called 'Lady Jane' was about the queen who reined for 9 days & was executed as a teenager? I didn't. Lady Jane was from the House of Tudor, a subject you indicated you like. How do I know Mick Jagger & Keith Richards wrote their song about Lady Jane Grey if neither talks to or hangs out with me? Answer: I don't; I read that 'factoid' somewhere online or heard it in an interview.

Moral: Go easy on Kathleen ('cut her some slack'). She's no more guilty of anything we all have done one time or another when recalling something we read or heard somewhere. None of us has the capability to cite a reference for all we have seen & heard in our lives. Opportunities to do so don't always exist at the time.

Best

BM

Edited April 14, 2015 by Brad Milch

[Kathleen Collins]

My message in my last post was definitely between Jackie and Clint Hill, not Johnson. I

think Johnson was acting because I think he was behind the shooting. He knew damn well

Kennedy was going to die that day. There are photos taken that day, at the speech in front of

the hotel and at the breakfast, where Johnson looks at Kennedy in a gloating manner.

Kathy C

[David Andrews]

"Lady Jane" by the Rolling Stones actually addresses events in Henry VIII's procession of wives and mistresses: "Lady Anne" (Boleyn) is succeeded by "Lady Jane" (Seymour), who is then supplanted by "My sweet Marie." This all occurred c. 1536, the year before Lady Jane Grey was born. The epistolary lyrics are freely adapted from surviving letters by Henry VIII, and are meant to be a commentary on the romances of a rock star.

How do I know? Jagger said it in print at the end of the 1960s. It fits the song better than the other scenario. But Clint Hill said things in print, too. So did Arlen Specter, Seymour Hersh..... Thus it is - we may sigh - with the legends of King Jack and Lady Jacqueline.

Edited April 17, 2015 by David Andrews

[Kathleen Collins]

I think I was a bit tired last night. I was totally wrong. Thank you, Kathy, for finding that bit about LBJ. I

know ellipses mean something was glossed over in a short description. I apologize. I am wide awake now.

I did read that a post was made in which someone said a friend of theirs saw either the "other" film or the

Z film and said (paraphrase), "It doesn't show Clint Hill slapping Jackie on the trunk of the car." So make

of it what you will. Sorry.

Kathy C