Greg Burnham

Posted for David Mantik, MD, PhD: The reference to my conversation with Ebersole is correctly cited in the abstract--but not in the full PDF. I have asked the publisher to correct this. Audio Recording of Conversation: A Telephone Conversation with Dr. John Ebersole Of course, I have already addressed Pat's arguments at: Mantik Rebuts Speer's Arguments

Pat and I share a similar past career (in the music industry) although our paths never crossed. Hence the reference to "a 45" (record) is to the speed (in rpm's) at which those little vinyl records were played.

Thanks for the back up, Jim. Perhaps Pat would do better identifying the anatomical structure of a song that's recorded on the "B" side of a 45 by his favorite singer. All joking aside, David is a Founding Member of my Research Forum. I have known and worked with David for over a decade now (since early 2001). In that time, there have been several traits he has consistently displayed: 1) a vast knowledge of human anatomy associated with his credentials as a Medical Doctor, Board Certified in Radiology 2) a vast knowledge of the behavior of "objects, light, anything with mass or other physical properties" associated with his credentials as a scientist with a PhD in Physics 3) a reluctance to toot his own horn 4) an unparalleled attention to detail 5) a refusal to enter into pissing matches with skunks 6) an extremely generous nature, which makes the sharing of information he's discovered easily accessed by all 7) a willingness to readily admit to an error * if an error was actually committed--and the graciousness to publicly thank the person who discovered and pointed out that error (the opposite of Bugliosi) I have been most impressed with his unusual patience when his work comes under attack by those who are not educated in the medical field, (but would have us believe that they have a "self-taught degree" in medicine that's "just as good" as the real thing). His willingness to explain, in detail and in lay person's terms, the meaning of his findings to those unfamiliar with radiology (even those who talk a good game, but know next to nothing about the subject). * Of course, where no error has been proved by the critic then no admission is forthcoming.

200 bucks today? You must be joking. Try closer to a thousand.

You're all very welcome.

Not that I care, but shouldn't the title at least be: "Trump Fires Stone" instead of backwards?

See this article on my website: Was Umbrella Man a Shooter?

Perhaps a modified Colt 45 Model 1911-A suits your purposes better?

Colonel Prouty sent me this photograph of the flechette dart. It is placed next to a dime for size comparison purposes.

I have no idea what actually happened, but something is wrong with this picture. Very wrong. I do not believe for a second that any competent police officer in any city in America would have failed to confiscate, mark, bag and protect the provenance (chain of custody) of such incriminating evidence. Its presence on the person of the suspect, if it actually existed at the time the arrest was effected, would be "golden" for the prosecution's case. That is to say, its mere appearance on the suspect would have definitely been used against the suspect in court had he lived to stand trial. Such evidence would be an "icing on the cake" piece of inculpatory evidence even if they failed to match the murder weapon. If they did match the murder weapon, it would nearly be a slam dunk. The higher the case's profile and/or the higher the emotional investment of the arresting officer (suspect is accused of murdering a fellow police officer), then the more likely are the police to be extremely thorough in searching for and discovering incriminating evidence, collecting and safeguarding that evidence, all the while adhering to the letter of the law (not just the intent of the law) in order to insure that the suspect doesn't "walk on a technicality." So I don't know if they: 1) planted evidence on his person; 2) just made it up; 3) were astonishingly incompetent; or 4) other -- But I suspect the answer is no longer relevant. However, in 1963, the answer to that question would have impacted a jury trial in favor of the defense.

Not only would bullets definitely be confiscated from the pockets of a murder suspect immediately, but so would EVERYTHING else! Arrest procedures are relatively uniform (but not identical) throughout the 50 States and have not changed very much at all since the days of the Old West. Of course, new technology has been introduced. But, as far as how the personal property of an arrestee is handled, the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) governs search procedures. If an officer has probable cause to effect an arrest he also has probable cause to search the pockets of the suspect and to remove from the suspect's possession any items that are potentially dangerous to the officer, to the suspect himself, or to others. This is not limited to "weapons" or ammunition, but potentially includes anything. A search "incident to the arrest" has been very common place for a very long time although that terminology wasn't in use prior to about 1969. Have you ever watched the show COPS? Have you ever seen an officer find a crack pipe in a suspect's pocket? Have you ever seen an officer decide to put it back because the suspect had no crack cocaine to smoke in it? After all, theoretically speaking, if the pipe had never been used it would have had no residual illegal substance in it and would therefore itself not be illegal to possess. So too, an officer would not leave bullets in ANY arrestee's pockets under ANY circumstances. That the arrestee was a murder suspect and the victim was killed with a gun would give the presence of the bullets in the suspect's pockets even greater importance as well as bolster the probable cause justification for the search. If not convicted of the crime, it is also the suspect's Constitutional Right to be reunited with his possessions (so long as they are legally his or hers to own) upon release. Therefore the content of his pockets, such as, his wallet, car keys, money, pocket knife, compass, scrap paper, and -- even bullets -- would need to be segregated according to what constitutes evidence against the accused versus that which is merely his or her personal property. In the end, if no indictment (or conviction) is entered against the suspect, then his or her personal property must be returned.

David Mantik's new abstract was just published in the peer reviewed medical journal, Medical Research Archives. The essay can be found and downloaded (or read online) for free at this link: The John F. Kennedy Autopsy X-Rays: The Saga of the Largest "Metallic Fragment" Highly recommended reading.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume the limo stopped or slowed to a crawl... The importance of the limo stop evidence is multifaceted. If we assume that the limo stopped (or for those who are yet undecided, that it slowed down to a crawl) but the extant film does not show that stop, then the film was tampered, hence a conspiracy to obstruct justice. We must also ask why the presidential protection detail failed to follow the proper protocol for evading an attack. If a threat--particularly gunfire from any direction--is detected, then rapid acceleration and the acquisition of lateral motion is immediately indicated as the first means to protect. That the extant Z-film was edited to remove evidence of the limo stop (or extreme slow down) is not the point. The point for the editing / alteration was to conceal Secret Service complicity or gross incompetence when failing to follow normal protection procedures. Greer's claim that he slowed down because he thought that they may have been "heading into an ambush" is ludicrous. It is the "gross incompetence at worst" limited hangout position. Even if Greer did think that they were "heading into an ambush" (which means he thought there were shots from the front) --indeed, especially if he thought that was the case--then rapid acceleration / lateral motion (a zig-zag pattern) should have been his conditioned, reflexive response. After all, what other choice did he have? Was he considering putting the vehicle in reverse? Perhaps a U-turn? No, Greer actually had to "think it through" in order to override his training and resist the reflexive response with which he was conditioned to properly respond. In other words, slowing or stopping the vehicle was the absolute worst choice he could have made. It would all but insure success for the assassin(s). Choosing to stop was a decision that first countermanded the correct "trained" response and then replaced it with "new" faulty instructions. If Magic Johson fed Kareem Abdul Jabaar the basketball on a fast break, while Kareem was standing alone under the basket, Kareem would instinctually slam dunk the ball. In order for him to fail he would need to deliberately stop, wait for the defenders to come back and guard him, and then allow them to block his shot. He would literally have had to "override his conditioning" to prevent himself from making the correct play (a slam dunk). If he did this when the Lakers were down by one point with only a half second on the clock and it lost the game for them, what would we think happened?

Entertainment? I'd sooner watch Granny Clampett mud wrestling with Roy Clark on a deranged hybrid between The Beverly Hillbillies and Hee Haw!

Kenneth, You provided my forum's link as the source for this trash. That is unfortunate. The individual who made the YouTube is not even a member of my forum. The individual who posted a link to that YouTube on my forum has since been banned form participation on the forum. Had I viewed the YouTube when it was first posted to my forum, I would have deleted the post. JFK's Jimmy Carter? Really? Boy Carter sure looks great for a guy turning 100 years old in less than two years! Joe Kennedy, JR. is really George H. W. Bush? Really? Did you notice that Jack Ruby was wearing shoes by Gino Magli, too?

It is not my job to pass judgment on Gary Mack. However, it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that he was the stalwart of moral and ethical fortitude that some here are suggesting. If we assume that Gary was sincere when he privately claimed to believe the official version was wrong and that JFK was the victim of a conspiracy (no matter the details), then several pertinent questions are raised automatically. He apparently believed that the truth had yet to be told since he did not believe the official story. 1) Why did Gary believe that the truth had yet to be discovered and revealed? 2) Did he believe that those who have dedicated a great deal of their lives to researching the evidence and have arrived at various conclusions, some erroneous, are mostly responsible for the suppression of the truth? 3) Did he believe that the reason that the truth is yet to be known is due to erroneous beliefs held by some conspiracy theorists? 4) Did he believe that by eradicating these erroneous theories the resources of the federal government would again be spent on reopening the investigation and getting to the bottom of it? 5) Did he really believe that erroneous "conspiracy theories" were the reason the truth was not known for over 50 years and that it was his responsibility to rid the research community of these false conclusions? 6) Did he really believe that if he was successful in this (self-appointed?) mission to cleanse the research palate, that truth and justice for JFK would prevail? 7) If so: How? So while I cannot pass judgment on Gary Mack, I'm sure that if there is a God and if Gary did have a soul, the answers to those questions might prove to be less than amusing when addressed from a position not shielded from the hot seat.

NSAM 273: An Introduction

According to Professor George Michael Evica, on page 16 of the Prologue to his book, A Certain Arrogance, it was the FBI who was monitoring Oswald's mail at the time the Warren Commission alleges that the rifle was ordered.

AssassinationOfJFK.net main website Forum's Founding Members: Greg Burnham (Admin) David Mantik, MD, PhD Adele Edisen, PhD Phil Guiliano Charles Drago John Costella, PhD Stan Wilbourne Scott Myers Phil Dragoo [Forum is mainly for advanced research] ================ The Collected Works of Colonel L Fletcher Prouty (Len Osanic) ================ Topics on the National Security State of America (Dave Ratcliffe)

Its authenticity was established more than one decade ago, hence plural. I don't have the exact date in front of me when (I believe) Bruce got his copy, but I am fairly certain it was at least 20 years ago. You might find this one interesting, too. [All information contained below was unclassified as of October 15, 1993 -- Twenty-two years ago]

The memo's authenticity was established decades ago, Glenn. Here's a copy: BTW, it was McBride who discovered this document? when was this discovered? Actually, it was not McBride who first discovered this document. Or at least he was not the only one who discovered it. I've had this document for at least 15 years, long before I had ever even heard of McBride. I know that Bruce Campbell Adamson also had it long ago, perhaps going on 20 years or more.

Is this from Richard Bartholomew?

I can't emphasize enough the importance of actually listening to Hemmings taped interviews before making judgments about his credibility. I also know this is more easily said than done unless you spent as much time with him as I did. However, many researchers only know of Hemming from the work done by Weberman. Some are also familiar with Twyman's extensive interviews in Bloody Treason. The problem with the Weberman commentary is that it lacks "expression" and all the rest that is associated with spoken language. Too many researchers, often through no fault of their own, have been misled into believing that Hemming was being literal in his choice of words when, in fact, one would need to "hear" the tone along with the context to make such a determination. Having said that, I also know that Gerry had a very low tolerance for being "pigeon holed" and would retaliate with obfuscation or red herrings. This approach did not help his reputation. Bottom line: Take everything in the Weberman book on Hemming with a grain of salt. If it reads like dripping sarcasm it probably is. "E Howard Hunt escaped the TSBD by a rope in the elevator shaft."

The memo's authenticity was established decades ago, Glenn. Here's a copy: