Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
  • Posts

    2,245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Greg Burnham

  1. 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!

    JFK_Encinitas.jpg

  2. 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.

    JFK_Imm.png

    NRA_JFK.png

    JFK Refugees.png

    NRA JFK.png

  3. 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.

    man_x.jpg

  4. On 2/26/2017 at 2:12 PM, Michael Clark said:

    One thing I would like to verify is if McGeorge Bundy can be fairly blamed for the call to not hit the last three Cuban jets until an airstrip was captured. Is he a fall guy for JFK? Would he or could he have made that call on a critical departure from the plan?

    Cheers,

    Michael

    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

  5. 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.

  6. The obvious implication being there are different levels of classified. Geez! Was that too hard to figure out?

    For those who have actually had a security clearance, your above comment speaks to your lack of experience.

    There is CLASSIFIED

    There is TOP SECRET

    There is NOFORN

    There is EYES ONLY

    [etc]

    FYI: Obama went on to further say: "There's 'top secret' and then there's TOP SECRET."

    No, Mr President. There are documents that are CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are not CLASSIFIED.

    There are documents that are "simply" CLASSIFIED and there are documents that are CLASSIFIED as:

    TOP SECRET or EYES ONLY or NOFORN (aka: No Foreign Dissemination) and so forth.

    Yes, Len, it is what it is.

  7. Defending Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton's email scandal this weekend, President Obama said to Chris Wallace [paraphrased]:

    "Well, there's 'classified' and then there's CLASSIFIED."

    -- The obvious implication being that there is some sort of distinction between two IDENTICAL words.

    It was reminiscent of Bill Clinton--when facing possible impeachment--famously saying:

    "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is."

    I'll tell you what it is. It's all BS.

    What has happened to our country?

    The oligarchs are not hiding in plain sight, they're not hiding at all.

  8. My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

    And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

    But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

    The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

    Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

    (Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

    Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 225. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 225. It matches to a tee.

    The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

    I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

    Thanks Greg, that helped a bunch. (Though you meant Z255, not Z225 for the Altgens 6 shot.)

    Now I understand better what Robert's points were, I think.

    As I understand it now, there is a question as to when the shots quit, due to Moorman''s statements.

    And as for Altgens, his statement (that he was 15 ft from the limo during the fatal head shot) indicates that the head shot really occurred further down the road than where Z313 shows it.

    This is better than how I earlier understood Robert's post. Because rather than most the Z-footage being altered, it looks like just the latter part of it was. I assume it was altered to remove the limo-stop. The limo-stop would be pretty damning for the Secret Service.

    This is pretty obvious so I'm sure it's been discussed a lot. But it seems that removing frames to speed up the limo during the limo-stop would be the way to go, followed by a good deal of touch-up work to remove jerkiness. By removing the limo-stop that way, the film would be shortened. The effect would be that the final shot on the revised film would occur closer to the TSBD than it really did.

    The problem is that this process would also move everything closer to the TSBD. And so, for example, Altgens should be seen in Z313. Which he isn't. Back to the drawing board.

    I don't know where Greg got his information from when he stated that the Altgens 6 photo corresponded to frame z225 of the Zapruder film. Most researchers agree it actually corresponds to frame z255.

    Here is something to think about. Witnesses along Elm St. all seem to hear roughly 3-4 shots, yet those at the eastern end of Elm St. seem to hear them at different locations than those closer to the Triple Underpass. Anyone venture a guess why that might be?

    Why move the head shot from 307 feet from the Sniper's Nest to 265 feet from the Sniper's Nest? Think of it this way. Even from the 6th floor, the advantage of height will diminish eventually. Hint: Why did we never see the Queen Mary (follow up car) immediately behind the limo in any of the reenactments, with SS agents standing on the running boards?

    P.S.

    Tom Purvis' research and ballistics "calculations" were a joke and, unfortunately, his nonsense still seems to be polluting this forum.

    I corrected my typo from Z-225 to Z-255 in the original post. Sorry for the confusion.

  9. My thanks to Robert Prudhomme for bringing Warren Commission Document 298 to my attention, and to Jim DiEugenio for putting it in context with the April 27th memo from Redlich to Rankin.

    And again thanks to Robert for helping me make sense of it all by posting information gathered from the testimony of Mary Moorman and James Altgens, which places the the limo for the first and final shots (sans Z-film dependency).. If I understand correctly, Moorman's testimony agrees with Altgens' regarding the first shot, and this gives me confidence in their testimony.

    But there is one thing I'm not sure I understand correctly. According to both Moorman's and Altgens' testimony, the first shot occurred when the scene was as depicted in Z-frame 255. Okay, so they agree with each other. Problem is, JFK had already been hit prior that. Right? The Z-film has JFK being shot more than 1 1/2 seconds earlier. Of course, the Z-film could be wrong. But if we consider only Moorman's photo, JFK had to have reacted very quickly to the shot.

    The problem with this hypothesis is that one has to figure out from where the extant Z-film got its frames depicting Kennedy bringing his hands up toward his throat just before slumping. Moorman shows only the slumping part.

    Am I understanding this correctly? (This question is directed only to those who believe the Z-film has been altered.)

    (Sorry Greg for going off topic. Though it sounds like you've given up on Pat.)

    Altgens corresponds with extant Z-film frame 255. Note Jackie's gloved hand grasping the president's left arm raised to his throat as seen through the limo windshield in Altgens 6. Then note the exact same hand position in the extant Z-film frame 255. It matches to a tee.

    The Moorman photo corresponds to extant Z-film frame 312. Both of these can be easily confirmed with distinct corresponding "features" within both the still photos and the film frames respectively. As an example one can draw an imaginary straight line from the Z-lens POV to the Moorman lens that passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle's windshield on the way to Moorman's lens. At the same time, one can draw a corresponding straight line from the reverse angle--from the Moorman lens POV to the Z-lens--that also passes directly between the motor cop's torso and his motorcycle windshield on its way to the Zapruder lens.

    I hope that helps. I can post a graphic tomorrow if you want.

  10. You can't just walk away from that.

    I most certainly can and I have!

    Pat Speer said: Your association with Fetzer has had a negative effect on your credibility. With me, and I'm sure with many others.

    Guilt by association is not logical, but that has never stopped you before.

    Rather than address the many issues you are now engaged in yet another fallacy: Poisoning the Well.

    You may as well claim that: "Since Burnham once was associated with Fetzer, there is no need to consider his arguments, as they must be flawed."

    You have again succeeded in redirecting the topic away from your inability or unwillingness to address the issues.

×
×
  • Create New...