Greg Burnham

Hello Ms. Thomas, Thank you for sharing with us your memories and experiences as a child during the war. It is very difficult for us to even "get our head around" such horror. It is the courage of people like you who survived to speak of it that serves as a reminder to us that we must be ever vigilant else we be lulled into a false sense of security. It is much easier to live in a state of denial rather than accept the fact that humans are quite capable of committing atrocities on a scale that is nearly unfathomable. Your testimony also serves to remind us of the resiliency of the human spirit and that hope can endure even in the face of seemingly insurmountable challenges. Welcome to the Forum!

Fair enough, Chris. Just as a minor observation... You earlier wrote: I don't think that is a fair question. It might be poignant if Gary Mack was "caught burying evidence" today, as he has become rather "suspect" in certain circles. But in 1977 he was considered to be the genuine article. I take further exception on two counts. Pairing Mary Ferrell with Gary Mack is inappropriate. First of all--like Gary Mack--Mary Ferrell was never a proponent of the lone gunman scenario. But, unlike Gary Mack, Mary Ferrell was never perceived as having switched sides or as having become a part of the problem or eventually having become more critical of conspiracy researchers than she was of the conspirators themselves! Today Gary Mack takes more cheap shots at the critics than he does at the Warren Commissioners. But in 1977 that was NOT the case. In 1977 if evidence of conspiracy was offered by him it was considered relatively reliable--or at least worth a good look. Secondly, back in 1977 Gary Mack was firmly established as a member of the Warren Report Critical Community. He would never have been accused of knowingly burying evidence of conspiracy. At worst, it would have been assumed that he failed to appreciate its significance rather than an attempt to withhold information.

Hi Chris, I don't believe in coincidences...especially when they result in the further marginalization of conspiracy research. Such monumental blunders by otherwise intelligent people seems a bit convenient. However, I won't comment further. I will leave it to the reader to make their own evaluation of the evidence and judge if this is yet one more innocuous coincidence. [Excerpt from an article by Steve Barber] The Acoustic Evidence: A Personal Memoir In August 1979, I was leaving Ohio for a week's vacation in Dallas, Texas. I was going to meet assassination eyewitness Charles Brehm. The day I was leaving Ohio, the Gallery magazine featuring the infamous "paper record" hit the news stands. I rushed out and bought a copy. J. W. Burke -- then publisher of The Grassy Knoll Gazette -- briefly mentioned in the May 1979 edition that this particular issue of Gallery was going to feature a recording of the Dallas police radio frequency, with the "stuck-open microphone sequence." I was thrilled to hear this! Not long after I returned from Dallas, I began listening to the recording. Contrary to popular opinion, I was not convinced there were gunshots recorded on it, because I could not hear any. But I accepted the word of the computers and the experts who ran them. I was convinced that Dallas Police motorcyclist H.B. McLain, who was riding in the Presidential motorcade that day, had had the open microphone. I had no problem with it. That is, until I bought a copy of R. B. Cutler's book, Mr. Chairman: Evidence of Conspiracy. In it was a published article from the Dallas Morning News by Earl Golz. In the article, Richard E. Sprague (photo consultant) mentioned that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) asked him to locate a motorcycle in the films and photos taken before, during and after the assassination. He reported to them that not only could he not find one, but he said that there were none to be found within 120-150 feet behind the limousine. The HSCA didn't like this news, so they asked HSCA photographic consultant Robert Groden to search for someone. He erroneously located McLain. When I listened to the Gallery record forthe first time, I was totally confused. I'd had a portion of a Dallas radio program that researcher Gary Mack appeared on in Dallas. (Mack was credited by the HSCA for bringing the tape to their attention and, who worked for a local Dallas radio station.) The portion of the tape he was describing to the listeners of the radio program was about two minutes prior to the location at which the Gallery record stated the shots were located, but Mack was describing both of what we were hearing; the radio program and the Gallery record. I was totally confused as to why he is in two completely different sections on the same tape, saying there are 7 shots in one location, and 4 in another. [emphasis added]

Obviously, the Editors-in-Chief for the Washington Post, New York Times, and Boston Globe; as well as, Senior White House Correspondents from NBC, ABC, and CBS were all "Friends of Walker" and followed is command.

Thank you, Greg, this is an interesting discussion. Do you have a current opinion regarding the validity of the acoustic evidence? I'm still researching, and am on the fence... Tom You're welcome, Tom. Considering the source (who brought it to the attention of the HSCA), it is dubious, IMO. It appears to be another example of the intentional misinterpretation of conflicting evidence that is designed to perpetuate a state of uncertainty rather than a state of clarity. I posted the following on my website: ==================================================== The "acoustics proof" is yet one more example of how diametrically opposed conclusions have been drawn from the same evidence in this case. Gary Mack was responsible for bringing the dicta belt recording to the attention of the HSCA. Why are we surprised that it was a straw man? The Warren Report, which allegedly relied heavily on the Zapruder Film, concluded there was only one gunman, LHO who fired from one location, the TSBD, ergo no conspiracy was in play as far as multiple shooters are concerned. They presumably did not have access to or were unaware of the acoustic evidence. [i am ignoring, for the moment, the idiocy of the remainder of their poorly investigated report.] Here's the gambit: The HSCA, which allegedly relied heavily on the Zapruder Film, would also have concluded there was only one gunman, LHO who fired from one location, the TSBD, ergo no conspiracy was in play as far as multiple shooters are concerned until they gained access to the acoustic evidence due to the effort of Gary Mack. The Zapruder film has been used by both sides (lone gunman and conspiracy) to support mutually exclusive conclusions. The evidence that it [the Z-film] has been tampered is so compelling as to render it inadmissible. Therefore it cancels itself out. So by offering an alternate source of proof (the acoustics evidence) to the HSCA, Mack appeared to tip the scale in favor of conspiracy. However, if that evidence was known to be unreliable, due to planned flaws in methodology, one can create a false dichotomy. That false dichotomy looks like this: "The HSCA found that there was only one shooter, LHO, who fired all shots from the 6th floor of the TSBD. However, once introduced, the acoustics evidence alone caused them to change that conclusion. But now that the acoustics evidence has been shown to be flawed, the conclusion reached [by the HSCA] must also be flawed. Therefore, the Warren Report's [original] conclusion must be correct despite its own deficiencies." Remember, Gary Mack is also the person who "spotted" the alleged presence of "Badgeman" in the Moorman polaroid. As I first pointed out to Jack White in 1998: "Why is it that with some enhancement we can allegedly make out a figure concealed in shadows, surrounded by foliage, hiding behind a fence, visible only from the chest up, whose position just happens to correspond to the source of the acoustic evidence...yet...we cannot sufficiently enhance that same polaroid to reveal the presence of Abraham Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman who were allegedly standing in plain view, on top of a pedestal, in full sunlight?" ======================================================

Let's see. This has to do with Proof of the Motorcade Stopping how? Perhaps Walker, dressed as a DPD Officer, stepped into the street on Elm and shouted: "Hör auf!" at Greer who obeyed his command.

Here's an interesting discussion of that topic.

You have provided no evidence that the DPD worked for Walker. Lack of evidence equates to lack of relevance at this juncture.

And, as is so often the case, Paul Trejo has succeeded in derailing yet another thread's topic by steering it once again to his "theory" involving General Walker. This topic was about Proof of the Motorcade Stopping. It was not about General Walker. Yet Paul would have us believe that Walker changed the motorcade route or gave the order to have it changed, which then resulted in what exactly? Do you see how this works, yet, Robert? Perhaps my earlier sarcastic posting of the "fake article" will make more sense in this context. I saw the thread coming apart as soon as he opened his mouth. The only way that Walker's relevance to this thread's original topic could be argued would be the posting of EVIDENCE in support of such a claim. If the evidence doesn't exist, then neither does the relevance.

I have no "theory" of the assassination. JFK was, in fact--not in theory--killed as the result of a conspiracy. That those investigating the crime, including the FBI, the Secret Service and members of the Warren Commission and their staff were aware that JFK was not the victim of a lone assassin indicates that there was a concerted effort to obstruct justice. No matter the "reason" one offers to justify or explain this attempt to cover- up the crime, it remains an indication of complicity on the part of those involved in that obstruction. In American jurisprudence, the crime of alteration or destruction of evidence for the purpose of obstructing justice is tantamount to guilt for the original crime being investigated.

The so-called "assassination mystery" does not exist and it never has.

I'll say it straight out. I do not know if Paul Trejo is a xxxx or not. I do know that--absent reasons due to cognitive impairment--he displays characteristics consistent with intellectual dishonesty as defined in the dictionary: Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. ​That is different than calling someone a xxxx.

Thank you for that reminder, Paul (Brancato). Sometimes it is worth noting, not only the nature and details of inconsistencies that crop up within a researcher's work, but also to notice how that researcher responds to well founded criticism of their methodology. Of particular concern--because it is so easily demonstrable--is Paul Trejo's response (or lack thereof) to peer review in which he chooses to ignore the significant effect that egregious FACTUAL errors do to his pet theory. Such monumental errors can only weaken it, at best, and often will weaken it to the point of nullification. I agree with you, Paul, that when a researcher carries on as if the errors he committed are of no consequence or were not committed--when proof of their commission has been provided--it speaks directly to that researcher's intellectual honesty.

Robert, I encourage you to do your own research. Trusting this "source" is unreliable as has been proved many times over the years on this forum. I don't claim that Paul Trejo is deliberately misleading anyone. I am stating, however, that much of his analysis is based on hunches that he has not himself verified. Notwithstanding his conciliatory tone, his reportage of so-called "facts" is often inaccurate. He states as fact many inaccuracies "by the numbers" in his scenario above. I haven't the time to list each one here, but I do encourage you to verify anything that would tend to cause you to draw conclusions--or that would cause you to change your mind. This holds true when considering my research, as well. I think it is appropriate for researchers to verify my claims before buying into them rather than taking my word for it. Although over time an individual's track record can speak for itself, perhaps earning them the benefit of the doubt in some cases, this is not the case with Paul Trejo, IMO. Let's take one or two examples of false conclusions he cites as "proof" of Oswald's guilt in the Walker shooting from the above. He concludes that McDuff did not shoot at Walker despite McDuff's having the motive, means, and opportunity to do so. McDuff had a documented history with Walker and there are eyewitnesses to that relationship gone bad. Oswald had no relationship with Walker and none has been suggested, except by those who would frame Oswald for the JFK assassination and Paul Trejo. The lengthy scenario that Paul Trejo describes to explain why Oswald is a more likely candidate for the Walker shooting than is McDuff violates Occam's Razor in its complexity. Just because a person passes a lie detector test does not mean that they are telling the truth, and, conversely, just because someone fails a lie detector test does not prove that they are lying. Indeed, the results from a lie detector test are generally inadmissible in a court of law due to their lacking scientific precision. They are used by police departments and District Attorneys because if they show a lie is being told it will often cause a suspect who is guilty to confess. That confession is how the suspect is convicted--not the result of the test. The simple solution is: Despite having passed a lie detector test, McDuff fired at Walker. Now, I am not claiming that is what actually happened, but if I am to choose between only these two suspects, based on the available evidence, McDuff is a more likely candidate than Oswald. As for Paul's never reading any credible evidence regarding Ruth Paine's relationship to Intelligence Agencies, including the CIA, indicates that Paul may not do enough reading, does not read relevant sources, or can't tell what is credible and what is not. He fallaciously cites this condition (not reading anything indicating her relationship to CIA) as evidence of absence. But, as we all know: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So just because he has not found the evidence does not mean it is not there. However, it is fallacious to rely on evidence that one has not yet found to support a conclusion because that evidence may not exist. And, conversely, it is fallacious to rule out a possible conclusion simply because one has not found the evidence to support it. In other words, definitive conclusions--positive or negative--must be based on evidence rather than on the absence of evidence. To support the notion that Ruth Paine and, yes, Michael Paine, both had connections to US Intelligence I encourage you to read A Certain Arrogance by Professor George Michael Evica, whose extensive research into the CIA's manipulation of various religious organizations, including the Quakers and the Unitarian Church, indicates that the Paine's were being used, wittingly or not, in a long term intelligence operation involving Lee Harvey Oswald. You will also gain invaluable insight by studying the work of John Armstrong.

So -- my guess would be that anybody in the 112th Army Intel who pushed Oswald as a "lead suspect" was a "Friend of Walker". This is empirically verifiable by somebody willing to find the name of the clerk who called the DPD with the data -- and also the name of the clerk's supervisor, and then disclose their political affiliations. Regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Again you assume facts not yet established upon which you then build your case. But if these "facts" are not true then your "case" falls apart. It is a "guess" by your own admission. You said: "This is empirically verifiable by somebody willing to find the name of the clerk who called the DPD with the data -- and also the name of the clerk's supervisor, and then disclose their political affiliations." How would you know if it is "empirically verifiable" or not? Since nobody, including--and especially--YOU, has been willing to do the WORK required to substantiate your assumptions? For all you know there is no "clerk" who called the DPD. Perhaps this "clerk" is illusive because you haven't even tried to "find" him or her. And, if you did make the attempt, but were unsuccessful, then maybe you couldn't find him or her because they did not exist and it didn't happen the way you speculate it happened. Occam's Razor in a nutshell: The simple solution is preferable to the more complex so long as it is adequate to the evidence. In this case, the "clerk" hasn't been identified because either the "clerk" is just a "guess" on your part and doesn't exist, or you simply have neglected to try to find him. I suggest that before you build a case based on a "guess" that then becomes a premise for your argument, you first establish the veracity of your "guess" so it has at least a chance of becoming a viable component in a logically valid argument instead of a foolish fallacy.

Too bad you encouraged him, Robert. BTW: I was not arbitrarily splitting hairs over his use of the term "I believe..." However, within the context of the remainder of his claim--namely, he "believes" this or that DESPITE admitting to having no evidence to support it--those two words acquire a special meaning. IOW: It is an unsupported assertion, [read: that he made up], which he "believes" simply because it aligns with his predetermined pet theory about Walker. This is not research. It is essentially force fitting evidence, fabricating evidence, or ignoring evidence depending on its effect on his predetermined theory. But isn't that the exact tactic we criticize about The Warren Report, which does the same thing? Only, instead of implicating Walker, as Paul insists on doing at every turn, the Commission implicated Oswald at every turn in order to pin the deed on him, which was their pre- determined theory. As for Paul's follow up post above regarding the account by Roger Craig: This is yet another example of how Paul manipulates the reader by mis or re-directing the original context. I was not criticizing anything about the parking lot claims. I am criticizing Paul's posting an assertion regarding, once again, General Walker for which he has no evidence. Namely, he has no evidence that Walker was in cahoots with Dallas Law Enforcement Officers nor that he had a faithful following of cops who attended any so- called Friends of Walker meetings with him, nor that he "demanded" (his word) they "fix his [JFK's] wagon" by bending the motorcade over to the knoll. Paul insists on inserting Walker into this crime at every juncture. It is nearly as ludicrous as my posting a contrived news article [below] in which Walker is posing as a cop to accomplish the change in the motorcade route and then claiming it's "evidence." My contrived article is no more evidence than is Paul's contrived claim. Both are baseless. The only difference is that mine was contrived to demonstrate a point while Paul's was contrived to make a claim for which, by his OWN admission, he has literally no supportive evidence! He has only his "belief." I would not object so strongly about this if Paul limited this to an expression of his "opinion" to which he has a right to hold. However, as he is so often inclined, Paul tends to begin building upon these unsupported assertions as if they were already "facts in evidence" when they, in fact, are not. Finally, Paul opined that: "[his] detractors shout 'NO' after somebody else has done all the work." Really, Paul? What work? What "work" have you done to make your case, Paul? None as far as I can tell. Obviously, not enough work to be identified as RESEARCH or else you would provide THE EVIDENCE to support your claim. Indeed, you have not done nearly enough work. Not even close. The burden of proof is on you to make your case. The burden is not on me to offer an alternate theory in order to rebut a case you haven't even made yet! If you offered the above to a jury and then rested your case, and I was opposing counsel, I wouldn't call a single witness, nor would I even need to deliver a closing statement. I'd simply move to dismiss for LACK OF EVIDENCE.

This is a self serving distortion of the meaning of your own words. You wrote two very important words near the beginning of your post. They are: "I believe..." That is RELIGION, not research. You then state what you believe to be true DESPITE the fact that you HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support that belief by your own admission. You then disingenuously allude to "evidence" as if it exists--but it is imaginary, fantasy evidence as you have not produced it! For all you know there is NO evidence to support your claim. You have no "reason" to suggest support for your claim exists beyond your marriage to your own pet theory. But without supportive evidence that theory has no legs. It is logically equivalent to claiming that: "I don't have the evidence yet, as it is just so difficult to get off the ground, but I believe there is a way to fly without artificial means." Absurd.

From a speech by Colonel Prouty: More interest to me than a genealogy of Lee Harvey Oswald and all the rest is, who said, “Lets go to Dallas, Jack?” I understand that Kenny O’Donnell feels real bad about it. I understand that Bobby Kennedy had said from time to time he wished he’d have put his foot down. Gerry Bruno, the greatest advance man in politics went there, but did Gerry Bruno pick the route? Maybe Mark can tell you. Who did? Who decided, “Let’s go to Dallas? You’ve been to Fort Worth; you’ve got to go to Dallas.” That’s important because whoever decided that knew some things.

You're welcome, Jon. Usually, I'm literally a literate person. The reason for my above sarcasm was to criticize, what I believe to be, the irresponsible peddling of a pet theory by one who has no evidence--by his own admission--to support his assertions. What I posted (the contrived news article) is literally more evidence than he has ever produced in support of this claim. The excuse proffered for not being able to substantiate his claim: "The evidence is hard to obtain..." is grossly fallacious as it presupposes the existence of the evidence upon which it relies to be valid. The circularity of the reasoning constitutes an abuse of logic.

Whew!

She was a grad student/teacher, i.e., a "teacher in training" so to speak. Even if she erred, which I don't claim she did, there is a procedure in place that a tenured faculty member should follow in order to offer the student teacher guidance if they believe the student teacher is mistaken. The method he chose was not within that framework.

Jon, I apologize for not identifying it as an entirely satirical post. I wrongly assumed it would be recognized as sardonic. Sometimes I think that if we can't laugh a little bit at ourselves, perhaps we can at least laugh at each other. I have edited the original to indicate the article was contrived.

Paul said: "I don't have evidence yet (it is so hard to obtain) ..." Perhaps it is "so hard to obtain" because it does not exist. Until now. [The above is satire only.]

Oh my!!! [the above is satire only]

Hi Robert, My presentation, entitled, "The Assassination of JFK: Assimilating the Anguish" focuses on this very topic. It will be available from the JFK Historical Group's DVD, "The Warren Report 50 Years Later: A critical Examination" produced from last September's conference in Washington DC. I will be uploading my segment (45 minutes plus Q&A) to my YouTube Channel next week. Stay tuned.