Greg Burnham

The presenters were, in order of appearance, Noel Twyman, David Mantik, Jim Fetzer, and Greg Burnham (also the moderator). It was held in a public theater and was open to everyone. We charged a $10 admission/donation and had about 200 attendees. The event was originated by David Mollering who first recruited me to help him organize and plan it. David created large posters for the event and laminated four of them for the presenters to have one each as mementos. How time has flown!

Now I remember why I stopped posting here.

Merit Based Immigration. Strong support for 2nd Amendment. Life Membership in the NRA. Extreme vetting for asylum seekers. Seeking peace with Cuba then, North Korea now. Planning to withdraw from Vietnam, promising to withdraw from "endless wars." Both campaigned on strengthening the military and both did just that. Both slashed CORPORATE as well as individual taxes dramatically. Similar policies, very different styles. The claim that there exists ZERO comparisons between the two is demonstrably false no matter how much you may hate Donald Trump.

David Middleton sent out an email referencing a Change.org petition in which he speaks of the late Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty's role --"Man X"-- played by Donald Sutherland in the movie, JFK. He erroneously says that Colonel Prouty was a STATE Department employee. Colonel L Fletcher Prouty was NOT an employee of the State Department! He was a full bird Colonel in the USAF, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of DEFENSE. He also worked for the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the Military Liaison Officer in support of Global Intelligence Operations. His title was "Chief of Special Operations" -- NOT at State, but at the Pentagon.

Yes, he can. He even tendered his resignation to JFK following his failure. JFK did not accept it. Also see my "essay in progress": Fiasco

I don't know what Jim is talking about here. I do not agree with Jim or Larry on this matter. Fletch was there. Greg Burnham Discusses The Bay of Pigs Fiasco with Len Osanic in 4 Parts

FYI: This debate was at a time that preceded efficient web streaming. So this is the only portion that was able to be preserved as there were extremely long gaps in it due to buffering, etc. I wish I had the rest of it, but alas...

I beat him in a debate and Marquette beat him in court! Judge backs Marquette University's suspension of professor John McAdams over blog post

LBJ's War: Vietnam 50 Years Ago

Here you go, Steve. I have no comment on the discussion, but I can offer to help with the image upload.

Summarizing: Intentionally flawed or not, Lamson's example is not an adequate representation of the "leaning" Stemmons sign post. The "leaning" sign post cannot be explained by parallax.

Using this logic, shouldn't you prevent non-members from reading the Education Forum's posts, as well, else you'll risk being hacked here, too?

This is a MEDICAL EVIDENCE thread.

Although I am admittedly biased, (since I participated in The Guilty Men episode in which I and some of my research were featured) I too believe that the series contributed a lot to help the public's understanding of the case. There were many more pluses than minuses. I found Nigel Turner to be not only gracious, but thorough. He displayed a considerable amount of courage in producing the series as a whole, but especially, The Guilty Men episode. Was it perfect? No. Did it achieve what we were hoping to accomplish over all? Yes. It got people exposed to a lot of evidence of which they would not have been aware had the series not been produced. It got people asking the right questions and thinking for themselves instead of blindly accepting the impossible LN narrative.

Welcome, Stu!