Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Content Count

    2,244
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. Whatever you do don't consider any additional evidence, no matter how relevant, to the contrary.
  2. Even Jake Esterline disagrees with this assessment and he wasn't particularly fond of JFK. Read his oral history of the event here. In that oral interview, among other things, he tells CIA Historian, Jack B. Pfeiffer, the following regarding the Bay of Pigs: “I am one of those who feel it is very wrong to pick too much on Jack Kennedy because it was Nixon who, if we had kicked off as we had hoped for, between November and January of 60-61, it might not have worked, but it would not have been a major disaster.” — Jake Esterline ​Remember that Nixon was in charge of this operation from the start. It was supposed to have taken place long before April of 1961. However, JFK embarrassed Nixon in the debate by having accused Eisenhower of "inaction" against Castro. Today we know that the action that was being planned--Trinidad and others--were so top secret that Nixon could not respond. Once the election was lost Nixon sought revenge against Kennedy and, apparently, in an act of pure spite, postponed action against Castro until after Ike left office. But, during the lame duck period, he ordered the CIA to build the operation up from about a 350 man affair to a more than 3,000 man amphibious assault invasion force! That had never been Ike's plan. But it was Nixon's revenge. The CIA convinced Kennedy that the (Nixon) plan was actually Ike's plan, which it was not. Who was JFK to question the amphibious assault plan of the former president who had been a 4 Star Army General and the Supreme Commander during the largest successful amphibious assault in the history of the world at Normandy? Well, he was the new president and so he did question it. The Agency lied. The rest is distorted history.
  3. Now you're just making this up or you have failed to do your homework. Scott, the PROOF in documentation exists as it is now public record and declassified. You have the ability to correctly report the matter if you just do the work instead of stubbornly clinging to your ill conceived conclusions. Have you even read the Taylor Report from the Cuban Study Group? It is spelled out in detail there. To wit: McGeorge Bundy, by tendering his own resignation letter shortly thereafter, admitted to JFK that he had failed to serve him (best interests) during the Bay of Pigs! I have a copy of that resignation letter. JFK did not accept the resignation probably because he was already getting rid of so many in his National Security apparatus: Cabell, Bissell and Dulles. If he had allowed Bundy to go, too, he would have appeared to have chosen his national security advisors very poorly.
  4. No Scott that is easily proved incorrect. Adlai Stevenson implored his own boss, Dean Rusk, to cancel the airstrikes as he (Stevenson) had already been embarrassed at the UN over the airstrikes that had been shown to originate from the US a couple of days prior to D-Day. If you are getting "very detailed" about all of this as you say, please provide the documents to support your claims as I have done on my website and in my presentations.
  5. With only one or two relatively minor clarifications, I concur, Jim. You said: "1.) The D Day air strikes were not part of the plan, they were only a contingency..." To which airstrikes are you referring? The pre-dawn airstrikes were not a mere contingency, as they were central to the plan and, according to the Taylor Report, their having been delayed was the "proximate cause of the failure." That they were cancelled is public record. Who canceled them is generally not public knowledge, but by now it should be as it is documented well. Unbeknownst to JFK, McGeorge Bundy made the call to General Cabell on orders from Dean Rusk who had ostensibly deferred to Adlai Stevenson's objections. I wrote about this extensively in an article simply titled: Fiasco The "other" D-Day airstrikes that are regularly conflated with the pre-dawn airstrikes, were not canceled by Kennedy because they were never ordered by him in the first place! Indeed, he specifically excluded any and all direct US intervention (in an emergency cable from J.C. King to Colonel Jack Hawkins in Nicaragua less than one week prior to D-Day) as they were outside the Rules of Engagement under the circumstances. The ONLY scenario legally allowing JFK to order direct US intervention would have necessarily hinged on the successful establishment of a new "Cuban Government in Exile." This would have been realized only if Brigade 2506 could have secured a beachhead and airstrip, at the very least, before declaring themselves as the new Government. But this never happened because of the cancelation, by McGeorge Bundy, of the pre-dawn airstrikes, which allowed Castro's remaining air force to become airborne, shoot down the Brigade's B-26's when they finally did arrive (too late), sink the Brigade's supply vessels, and pin the Brigade down. Under those circumstances, any direct intervention by the US would have been a violation of international law. So Kennedy did not cancel any promised airstrikes. However, JFK did refuse to launch direct US intervention the next morning, as it was already too late for the anti-Castro Cubans to declare a government in exile status.
  6. I believe Sirhan should be paroled because he is innocent of the crime. However, if you believe that the portion of your statement that I bolded above [where he was shot in the head by Sirhan] is true, why would you want him to be paroled? [edit] After posting this I realized that since Schrade is of the belief that he was himself shot in the head by Sirhan, which may well be true, then the disposition of Sirhan's guilt as viewed by Schrade is significant, IMO. That Sirhan does not remember shooting anyone at all--if we are to believe him--speaks to his innocence.
  7. This post is Millicent Cranor's response to Pat Speer from above: Some people have stopped making excuses for Pat Speer. They used to say his "mistakes" are simply the result of incompetence. Now, after reading my short but revealing report, and especially after reading his evasive non-response to it -- they say they know better. For those forum members who are interested, here is a sample of Speer's cherry-picking of evidence. This one concerns part of his "proof" that the large wound in JFK's head did not include the back of the head, or the occipital region. He focused on the pathologists' descriptions of lacerations in the scalp. He said "none" were reported in the back of the head. Elsewhere he expressed it as "no large lacerations" were reported in the occipital region. (Pat Speer) This is supposed to prove the big hole did not include the back of the head? It might seem that way -- if you don't know what else the pathologists said. Omitted by Speer: The pathologists ALSO said there was NO SCALP AT ALL (or bone) in the large hole which included the BACK OF THE HEAD, specifically the occipital area. (See item #1 under "Missile Wounds" of the Autopsy Report, p.3) This is a significant part of the autopsy report. It completely neutralizes what Speer was trying to use as proof of his position -- and he doesn't even mention it in this discussion. See for yourself: You have to wonder: What else has Speer left out?
  8. Thanks for the follow up, Doug. I don't know if there's any truth to his claim regarding RFK negotiating for two ships or not, but I never heard of it before. And, even if that was true, it certainly does not constitute RFK "planning the Bay of Pigs invasion" with United Fruit.
  9. A pity. I wrote about his apparent decline a few years ago: Fetzer and Guilt by Association Sadly, it appears to have further accelerated.
  10. I hope that the points that have been lost on you will become clearer in the subsequent installments. But I doubt it. As I said to Brian, I simply published an article that checked your facts. Mili is independent. Unlike some authors, she will give credit where and if credit is due. Irrespective of your criticism of the work by Mantik and/or Chesser, IMO, Mili's article stands on its own merit as an expose` intended to enlighten the reader so that they may draw their own conclusions.
  11. The article is the first one on the main page. However, I also have now added a direct link here and edited it into the above post for your convenience. I am not "out to get" anyone. I simply published an article by someone who checked his facts.
  12. I just published an article by my dear friend, Milicent Cranor, on my main website. As many of you know, Pat Speer has been critical of the work done by Dr's Mantik and Chesser. Please read this article and come to your own conclusions. ​PatSpeer.com: Fact Check
  13. I suppose I'm number seven then. Still, Allen Dulles didn't give orders. He took them.
  14. Even Hemming maintained that the reason the Watergate criminals were caught was because they were set up. According to him, the reason for their having been betrayed was to eventually implicate and take down Nixon.
  15. Thanks Doug. This particular claim bears the stench of disinformation. To wit: It appears that it could be post mortem character assassination by connecting RFK to the ill-fated decision making process...when he, in fact, had "many other fish to fry" more in line with his expertise in the Justice Department at that point of the JFK Presidency.
  16. Although I am aware of United Fruit's involvement with the BOP invasion, I question the claim made by McCann that they dealt directly (or otherwise for that matter) with then Attorney General, Robert Kennedy, in "planning the Bay of Pigs Invasion." Robert Kennedy was not among those who planned the BOP invasion. RFK was not tasked with CIA oversight until AFTER JFK forced Dulles to retire in the wake of the Report of the Cuban Study Group (The Taylor Report). Bobby was on that committee, which included, Allen Dulles, Admiral Arleigh Burke, and the recalled [Retired] General Maxwell Taylor. United Fruit Company was always connected at the hip to the CIA. To be clear, I repeat: Robert Kennedy was not involved in directly planning the Bay of Pigs invasion with United Fruit or anyone else.
  17. There is (almost literally) nothing that DVP has ever written that I hold to be true. In order to accept that the PMO was handled properly we must choose to reinvent the entire financial instrument practices of the US banking system! Now THAT is complex.
  18. You're welcome, Jon. As for this poll, it's just an indicator of what the majority of those who participated in it believe is true. That in no way means that it "proves" what the truth is. It simply reports what the participants believe is true.
  19. Below: See the medical poll followed by the current results so far. If you would like to voice your opinion go to this link and scroll to the bottom of the article. The poll is on the left side after the "Conclusions" section.
  20. Jon, You and I have had our differences in other areas of JFK research, particularly our respective views on Vietnam. However, I commend both you and Sandy for advancing impeccably cogent arguments built on solid evidence regarding the PMO issue. Again, the application of Occam's Razor to the equation is instructive. The simplest explanation that is adequate to the evidence is preferable to that which is unnecessarily complex. In my experience with LN's I have found that they will cling to unreasonably complex solutions in order to avoid conceding even the mere possibility, let alone reality, of conspiracy irrespective of facts to the contrary.
  21. [i posted this in the wrong thread. I moved it to correct the correct thread.]
  22. Tommy, It is not impossible or "next to impossible" to prove a negative. The claim that one cannot prove a negative has been repeated so often that it is taken as true by those who are not well versed in logic. As a rather simple example, I can easily prove to you that I do not have your computer in my possession. After all, you just used that computer to write your post. Even in a courtroom proof of a negative (not guilty), although not required, goes a long way if proper evidence exists. For example, if a suspect is accused of committing a murder in Los Angeles, but is is later discovered that he was already in custody in San Francisco for shop lifting, then that is proof (an alibi) that he did NOT commit murder in LA. Even a single example of the ability to "prove a negative" disproves your claim. C'mon, you can do better than that can't you? Sandy posted proof for his claim. You have not. Will it help if the challenge is phrased in the positive for you? For instance, please provide proof positive that PMO's were honored absent bank stamps and/or other endorsements.
  23. Huh? Jon did not say that. How inappropriate a response. He even said: "Far better IMO is to latch onto the verifiable facts, some of which are included in Chesser's and Mantik's analyses."
  24. I hope it helps, Bob. It's the best I can do. Perhaps you can simply refer to the page number, paragraph, and line numbers for reference purposes. Not to go off topic, but to save you time, don't attempt to copy and paste "text" from the original PDF or from my .png files because it will never work. You can't cut and paste "text" from that type of a PDF. The original document was an "image file" that was "saved as" a PDF file. That's not the same as a document that was created in PDF to begin with or a document that was created using any type of "word processor." This document was created using a typewriter! It possesses no code for text. A word processor document that was "exported" as a PDF could have the text lifted from it (C & P), but an image file is a "picture of the text" without it actually containing any recognizable text coding. It's the best I could do. Good luck!
×
×
  • Create New...