Greg Burnham

Good recording, interesting conversation. It does show his 'relaxed style' of conversation.

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."

I didn't know that about the memo - we certainly do owe him - the memo's authenticity has of course been questioned; is it surely legitimate?

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

I seem to recall that Hemming would make up stuff to tell Weberman, such as E. Howard Hunt escaping from the TSBD by a rope in the elevator shaft.

Much of what is contained in the nodules as "quotes from Hemming" lack the nuances of the spoken word (as opposed to the written word). Hemming was a very sardonic character. He used sarcasm like an exacto-knife; a means by which to cut the fat from the bone or to point out the naivety of the inquisitor.

Weberman makes the mistake (intentionally or otherwise) of writing a lot of what Hemming said in conversations with him as if it was prose--without deeper meaning.

See below:

"Weberman did the same thing as the CIA!"

[WARNING: Strong Language]

Glenn,

Webermann's research topics and assassination contacts are very intriguing, but he himself has a checkered history and so do some of his associates (the late Gerry Hemming for one).

Hemming despised Weberman.

I'm not going to further argue the details. My assertions are based on first hand knowledge as well as information received from experts on the subject. You can split hairs with someone else, Bob.

All of the stuff in Greg Burnham's Post #175 becomes meaningless fodder for conspiracy denialists when we realize this fact....

No, David. That is incorrect. It is evidence that is exculpatory in nature.

FACT:

1) Oswald displayed no black eye.

CONCLUSION:

He did not fire the weapon at all or he did not utilize the scope if he did.

FACT:

2) The clip was not ejected from the Carcano after the last round was fired.

CONCLUSION:

a] The clip still contained rounds after the shooting stopped (that were presumably pried out later) and have never been accounted for

b] or the accused assassin arrived in the sniper's nest with a half empty clip to murder the President of the United States and a weapon/ammo malfunction caused a round to jam preventing the clip from ejecting

FACT:

3) It was literally impossible for the accused (or anyone else) to properly utilize the iron sights in order to target the victim with any precision due to the limits of the weapon

CONCLUSION:

a] If that rifle was the actual weapon used to murder President John F Kennedy and it was fired from the so-called "sniper's nest," no matter the identity of the assassin, the outcome was, quite literally, the product of blind luck.

i think this MCarcano was a bolt-action...? clip...? what clip?

It is a bolt action rifle (with a fixed magazine). The "clip" for a Carcano is an en bloc type. The cartridges and the en bloc clip are both inserted (as a unit) into the magazine on the rifle. The en bloc was invented by Ferdinand Mannlicher and James Lee (separately).

ITEM:

1) The Carcano clip holds 6 rounds. It is ejected following the firing of the last round. You can't put a partially loaded clip into a Carcano. It must be a full clip (with all 6 rounds). So where did the other 3 rounds go? Surely an assassin would have arrived on scene with a full clip.

[The fully loaded clip is inserted and it "clicks" against a lock. There's a very strong follower made of steel with a very strong spring. If you tried to insert it with a clip that wasn't full the follower would push those rounds to the top so you can't get the clip to go all the way in and "lock" into place.]

ITEM:

2) While it is true that you might be able to hit a stationary target with a shot fired from a Carcano utilizing a scope, a few caveats are in order. You might be able to use a scope for a stationary target, but not a moving target. Here's why: To successfully use the scope you would need to acquire a stationary target in the crosshairs with your eye close to the end of the scope. If your eye isn't close to the end of the scope you can't see the target well enough to acquire it. These scopes (allegedly from Klein's) were not equipped with rubber padding on the end. Once the (stationary) target is acquired you would then need to move your eye and head back away from the end of the scope before taking the shot. This would require the use of a tripod to insure accuracy. Keep in mind, the target would have been acquired with the eye very close to the end of the scope. I guarantee you that anyone in such a scenario who acquired a target using a scope (on a Carcano) and fired a shot before moving their eye away from the end of the scope, didn't fire a second shot because they wouldn't have been able to see out of that eye! The first shot would have left them with a black eye or worse. [Even the FBI demonstrations with the weapon and scope show the agent's eye way back from the end of the scope. But from there he couldn't have seen anything.]

Obviously, JFK was not a stationary target. So this introduces a very significant complication. The moving target would be acquired with your eye very close to the end of the scope. The shot would necessarily be fired with the eye in that position (close to the end of the scope) else the target would be lost.

ITEM:

3) Unlike those on a Springfield, Mouser or M1 Garand rifle, the iron sights on the Carcano are fixed. Nor does the Carcano have a barleycorn-type front sight. This is no small problem. You can't adjust for windage and other factors. Even after zeroing in the sights for the specific task at hand, if they aren't perfectly dialed in (and how could they be?), there's nothing you can do about it. That is to say, they are not adjustable sights. If and when you discover how far "off" they are all you can do is smack them with a hammer a few times and keep your fingers crossed. In polite lingo such sights are "unreliable for precision shooting." In layman's parlance, they are crap.

Thanks for the info, Doug.

Greg - right. I can write AND read. right, i get the friend of a friend thing - that doesn't make it impossible. on its own merits, its a good image.

Pat - i have next to no exposure to Groden, but if that's the kind of material he produces, i'm clearly missing nothing. That's absolutely pathetic. Seriously. And to ME, this "new" photo looks nothing whatsoever like the unprofessional graphics job Groden has produced.

I have been working with graphics professionally for about 12 years; i'm not an expert, but i know when i'm seeing bad work. this new photo is not a cartoon, and it does not look anything like the cheese that it's being compared to. The angle of the head is not replicant to any of the others we've seen, the thumb isn't a reproduction. The lighting looks appropriately unprofessional as do the others. In my eyes, it's a real head wound that happens to resemble descriptions we've all read. Not as likely to be of K's head, but certainly not impossible that it is.

I'm really good with photograph manipulation, and one thing that occurs to me is that if someone were to want to "fake" such a picture with the intent to deceive, there's no need to create one, doctor one, draw one like a cartoon - there are millions of head wounds MUCH more gross than this online. it would be a cinch to find one with similar hair, crop it down close to the ears (the photo, not the hair) and call it an underground autopsy photo. easily done.

which makes Groden's mess all the more curious. hmmm...

It's my opinion that people in forums tend to jump to the "no" almost as fast as they used to jump to the "yes."

Glenn,

My post wasn't meant to be condescending at all! Please forgive me if it read that way as that was not my intent. After studying the photographic evidence in this case for 20+ years--in depth--I am rarely surprised to see this kind of not-so-clever photo manipulation. I think that Pat is correct. There are several extremely unique identifiers present in both "images" that indicate they are from the same source, but were subsequently subjected to very different "post dark room development work," such as, overexposure and extreme contrast of one and not the other... not to mention the removal of the examiner's hand from one image, only to be replaced with another hand in the next image.

As I stated in another thread:

Not even a single "re-creation" film should have been required!

Think about it: Two armed robbers enter a bank and demand that the teller give them all the cash in their drawer. After they have the cash they tie the employees' hands together and put gags in their mouths before getting away.

Luckily, the robbers wore no masks and the entire episode was recorded by a security camera. When the police arrive the robbers have vanished. Shortly thereafter the FBI arrive on scene since bank robbery is a federal offense.

Can you imagine the city police AND the FBI separately coming back days later to each shoot a "re-creation film" of the crime? For what purpose would they do such a thing? They already have the REAL film of the entire crime in their possession.

If they already had the REAL DEAL on film a "re-creation" film serves absolutely no innocuous purpose. This is particularly evident due to the fact that they shot the films from the exact location from which the REAL film was shot!

However, such an otherwise extraneous film could serve several "not so innocent" purposes.

-----

So tell us, David, why would the FBI replace the security camera in a bank with one of their own a few days after a robbery in order to film a re-enactment of the crime? Why would they enlist the services of "stand-ins" to play the part of the victims in the crime? And, now that they have more than one "re-enactment film" of the crime, why is it useful?

Is it the "Best Evidence" --even over the real film(s) of the crime?

This looks like something constructed for the autopsy scenes in the movie "JFK," as does the quite implausible/almost assuredly fake "new" photo in the recent Groden book.

The "new" photo in the Groden book is definitely NOT authentic. How (or why?) he could/would include it as if it was real is truly pathetic.

Glenn,

This is what it says next to the "photo" on Vince's site:

"A researcher who requested anonymity claimed someone prominent claims this is real."

===============================================

In my opinion--under those circumstances: "He said, she said..."--the photo may as well be a cartoon.

PS: In fact, it may well be a cartoon for all we know!!!

I'm open to reasonable folk from either side - especially, Vince Bugliosi who's just passed - I have an enormous respect for his reasoning and tactical skills (after having just read And The Sea Will Tell).

David Mantik, MD, PhD reviews Buglisosi's tome, Reclaiming History in its entirety. Note: The name "Bugliosi" is abbreviated simply as "B" in this review for the sake of brevity.

Below is an excerpt from the review that speaks very well to the point of intelligence lacking in depth:

An associate of mine fired this 6.5 mm Mannlicher round into the radius bone of a cadaver. It struck the bone dead center, shattering it. The round was slowed after impact by cotton wadding where it was then retrieved.

Hi Greg

Do you know which model of Carcano he fired that bullet from?

91/38 if memory serves.

An associate of mine fired this 6.5 mm Mannlicher round into the radius bone of a cadaver. It struck the bone dead center, shattering it. The round was slowed after impact by cotton wadding where it was then retrieved.

CE 399 is alleged to have caused the 7 non-fatal wounds to the President and Governor Connally. Included among these non-fatal wounds is the shattered radius bone of the Governor. The human radius bone is quite a bit denser than almost every other bone in the human body. If I'm not mistaken it is denser that the bone on the back of the skull, as well.

Therefore, even according to your own witness, Lattimer, CE 399 should have behaved differently than it did upon impact with just one of the seven points. Lattimer, when describing the expected result of a 6.5 mm Manlicher round being fired into thick bone, said: "...the jacket and core of the bullet will separate, releasing a myriad of additional fragments of many different sizes."

Yet, CE 399 is pristine.

Greg Burnham,

You make an incredibly important point.

Why did the U.S. Government make recreations of the assassination when it was in possession of the Z-Film and the Nix film. These films recorded the facts of the assassination. Unless the films were bungled fakes that needed to be corrected.

A+

Something we agree on.

You said: "Unless the films were bungled fakes that needed to be corrected."

I would tend to agree with that statement or with a similar explanation.

[PS: Don't look now, but that statement has added validity because it is the simplest explanation adequate to the evidence. Any other explanation I can think of violates Occam's Razor].

Why did the FBI and the SS do a recreation anyway? Wouldn't one have been sufficient?

I'll go one step further. Not even a single "re-creation" film should have been required!

Think about it: Two armed robbers enter a bank and demand that the teller give them all the cash in their drawer. After they have the cash they tie the employee's hands together and put gags in their mouths before getting away.

Luckily, the robbers wore no masks and the entire episode was recorded by a security camera. When the police arrive the robbers have vanished. Shortly after that the FBI arrive on scene since bank robbery is a federal offense.

Can you imagine the city police AND the FBI separately coming back days later to each shoot a "re-creation film" of the crime? For what purpose would they do such a thing? They already have the REAL film of the entire crime in their possession.

If they already had the REAL DEAL on film a "re-creation" film serves absolutely no innocuous purpose. This is particularly evident due to the fact that they shot the films from the exact location from which the REAL film was shot!

However, such an otherwise extraneous film could serve several "not so innocent" purposes.

The presence of nitrates on the cheek does not necessarily prove a weapon (in this case, a rifle) was fired. However, the absence of nitrates on the cheek proves that either:

1. the suspect did not fire a weapon
2. he cleaned his cheek to remove the nitrates prior to the paraffin test

However, unless the area (his cheek) was thoroughly cleaned, the absence of nitrates on his cheek is exculpatory.

Moreover, that he had a positive for nitrates test result for his hands is even more exculpatory than if his hands had come out negative! Why? Because the nitrates on his hands, no matter how they got there (from the boxes in the TSBD, from firing a pistol, or any other way), were NOT washed off at the time of the paraffin test.

So we are to believe that Oswald had the wherewithal to appreciate the necessity of washing all of the nitrates off of his cheek, but he failed to appreciate the importance of washing them off of his hands?

And, if so, how did he manage to thoroughly wash ALL of the nitrates off of his cheek without washing them completely off of his hands in the process?

Perhaps he had help. Ruth Paine could have washed them off of his cheek for him and advised him to leave them on his hands for this very exculpatory reason!

Oops. That can't be.

THAT would be a conspiracy.

And--wait for it Jon G. Tidd--such a theory would violate Occam's Razor in its complexity.

The appropriate application of Occam's Razor is mandatory whenever an explanation, which is alleged to be the "best" solution, is offered. If it were employed more frequently in the JFK case, the number of wildly ambitious theories would no doubt be greatly reduced. Moreover, the Single Bullet Theory would be dumped as a violation of the principle all by itself.

It is interesting to note that only IF we assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin does the Single Bullet Theory conform to Occam's Razor. However, if the restriction to only allow evidence that conforms to the predetermined conclusion of his guilt is removed, then the Single Bullet Theory becomes an example of one of the most egregious violations of Occam's Razor. If Oswald is "forced to be the lone assassin" in the investigation then an inordinate number of assumptions must be introduced in order to account for all of the evidence. Indeed, it becomes so outrageous that it has earned the moniker, Magic Bullet Theory.

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

E-MAIL FROM GARY MACK:

Subject: Paraffin Tests

Date: 6/9/2015 3:15:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Hi Dave,

Well, Dave, looks like Burnham's the one who is "conflating", for lie detector tests are always admissible in court as long as the prosecution and defense agree to do so. Besides, when the DPD told Oswald on 11/22 that they could run a paraffin test to determine if he fired a gun, neither he nor they were in court. One was in jail and the other was gathering evidence. And as I recall, not only did Oswald agree to allow the test, he taunted the officers by saying they'd just have to do the test instead of him confessing. What Oswald didn't know, and what Curry certainly didn't want the public to know, was that DPD knew full well that the test results might or might not be conclusive. That is why he said what he did to the press once the paraffin test results came in....and what he told them was accurate. What he left out of his statement was that the test might have been positive for some other reason.

Gary

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

Technically accurate, but practically misleading AND entirely ridiculous.

If given the opportunity to refuse, no prosecutor would ever agree to admit exculpatory evidence, such as, a negative (for lying) polygraph result. Conversely, if given the opportunity to refuse, no defense attorney would ever agree to admit inculpatory evidence, such as, a positive (for lying) polygraph result. Therefore, polygraph results are--for all intents and purposes--not admissible due to the objection of either side. Since a polygraph test result is only useful to one, but never to both sides in a criminal case, it is a foregone conclusion that polygraph results are, in effect, inadmissible. The exceptions to this are so scant as to be non-existent.

Gary plays with words and wording. He loses context and relevance.

He doesn't even post for himself.

Gary Mack is conflating the goal hoped to be achieved from two separate tests. The police often employed the technique of suggesting that a LIE DETECTOR TEST be administered in order to elicit a confession. Of course, lie detector tests have never been admissible in court, but paraffin tests were. There is a vast difference between the two tests. The paraffin test reveals the presence or absence of a substance. The lie detector test is wholly dependent on human interpretation of the result.