Greg Burnham

Pessimist.

Vincent J. Salandria was interviewed by Gaeton Fonzi in 1975. It was quoted by Fonzi in The Last Investigation (1993) "I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously. "The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down."

Davey Wavey, puddin' and Pain [sic] Made a claim that was quite lame None of the evidence did it explain So Davey Wavey ran away A Gain

Of course math is different from physics. However, that is not relevant to your earlier statement in this instance. Tell me Jon, what is the final resolution to a transcendental number, such as the Feigenbaum Constant, 4.669201609102990671853203... (ad infinitum)? How about the final (black and white) resolution of pi 3.14159265359... (ad infinitum)? As for physics: If math is used (not by physics, BTW) by physicists to study and describe (not reality, BTW) the universe, which includes studying both the infinitely large (cosmology) and the infinitely small (quantum mechanics) then the "mathematical ruler" employed for the measurements required to satisfy such a description must be both black AND white; it must include infinite shades of gray AND an infinite spectrum of the rainbow, as well, AND--on a quantum level--it must include all AND none of the above ...simultaneously.

Not on a quantum level.

I certainly agree that since this section of the EF is titled "JFK Assassination Debate" then it is perhaps appropriate for those who wish to "debate" to post here. However, it is also appropriate, in my view, for the owner of a forum to limit the scope of what is debatable on their own forum else it will become a free-for-all. For instance, would it be appropriate, simply because this forum is titled "JFK Assassination Debate," to allow a debate on "whether or not" JFK was assassinated? What to do with those who claim that JFK was never murdered, but rather faked his own death and then retired south of the Cliffs of Dover? Should we entertain all sorts of "debate" so long as they relate to JFK? Of course, most would agree that my sample "debate" would not be allowed as it is way too far fetched, that there is overwhelming evidence of his death, and that to entertain such unbridled argument would be a farcical waste of time. Gee, I've just described the Single Bullet Theory, the alleged timing of the shots from that weapon, the negative for nitrates on the cheeks paraffin test, and I'll even throw in the bunched up jacket for good measure, and so much more. But that's just me.

You're in good company. After all, Douglas (whom I admire greatly) defended the rights of E Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and other Watergate criminals.

Hopefully he's not simply graduating to his next-worst level as a Fox News contributor a la the Peter Principle.

May I suggest you read: The Strategy of Terror Europe's Inner Front by Edmond Taylor It is uploaded to my website at the above link as a PDF for easy online viewing. Please forgive the first few pages as some were intentionally left blank by the publisher, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass (Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1940). Here's a short excerpt:

Bob Prudhomme, this thread has digressed form your original topic. My apologies for contributing to that process.

I think the answer is bigger than the question. In my view, it is of little consequence to identify (even if such a thing could be done) which "contradictions, uncertainties, and implausibilities" are the most divisive. That the evidence was most often mishandled and the investigations were deliberately "agenda driven in a manner to create such divisiveness" is however central. Answering the question, "What is it?" -- is far less important than answering the question, "What does it mean?"

According to your definitions, would you say the CIA is a "pure" or an "un-pure" intelligence agency? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 292. National Security Council Directive on Office of Special ProjectsWashington, June 18, 1948. NSC 10/2 1. The National Security Council, taking cognizance of the vicious covert activities of the USSR, its satellite countries and Communist groups to discredit and defeat the aims and activities of the United States and other Western powers, has determined that, in the interests of world peace and US national security, the overt foreign activities of the US Government must be supplemented by covert operations. 2. The Central Intelligence Agency is charged by the National Security Council with conducting espionage and counter-espionage operations abroad. It therefore seems desirable, for operational reasons, not to create a new agency for covert operations, but in time of peace to place the responsibility for them within the structure of the Central Intelligence Agency and correlate them with espionage and counter-espionage operations under the over-all control of the Director of Central Intelligence. 3. Therefore, under the authority of Section 102(d)(5) of the National Security Act of 1947, the National Security Council hereby directs that in time of peace: a. A new Office of Special Projects shall be created within the Central Intelligence Agency to plan and conduct covert operations; and in coordination with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to plan and prepare for the conduct of such operations in wartime. b. A highly qualified person, nominated by the Secretary of State, acceptable to the Director of Central Intelligence and approved by the National Security Council, shall be appointed as Chief of the Office of Special Projects. c. The Chief of the Office of Special Projects shall report directly to the Director of Central Intelligence. For purposes of security and of flexibility of operations, and to the maximum degree consistent with efficiency, the Office of Special Projects shall operate independently of other components of Central Intelligence Agency. d. The Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for: (1) Ensuring, through designated representatives of the Secretary of State and of the Secretary of Defense, that covert operations are planned and conducted in a manner consistent with US foreign and military policies and with overt activities. In disagreements arising between the Director of Central Intelligence and the representative of the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense over such plans, the matter shall be referred to the National Security Council for decision. (2) Ensuring that plans for wartime covert operations are also drawn up with the assistance of a representative of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and are accepted by the latter as being consistent with and complementary to approved plans for wartime military operations. (3) Informing, through appropriate channels, agencies of the US Government, both at home and abroad (including diplomatic and military representatives in each area), of such operations as will affect them. e. Covert operations pertaining to economic warfare will be conducted by the Office of Special Projects under the guidance of the departments and agencies responsible for the planning of economic warfare. f. Supplemental funds for the conduct of the proposed operations for fiscal year 1949 shall be immediately requested. Thereafter operational funds for these purposes shall be included in normal Central Intelligence Agency Budget requests. 4. In time of war, or when the President directs, all plans for covert operations shall be coordinated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In active theaters of war where American forces are engaged, covert operations will be conducted under the direct command of the American Theater Commander and orders therefor will be transmitted through the Joint Chiefs of Staff unless otherwise directed by the President. 5. As used in this directive, “covert operations” are understood to be all activities (except as noted herein) which are conducted or sponsored by this Government against hostile foreign states or groups or in support of friendly foreign states or groups but which are so planned and executed that any US Government responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized persons and that if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them. Specifically, such operations shall include any covert activities related to: propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world. Such operations shall not include armed conflict by recognized military forces, espionage, counter-espionage, and cover and deception for military operations. 6. This Directive supersedes the directive contained in NSC 4-A, which is hereby cancelled. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 273, Records of the National Security Council, NSC 10/2. Top Secret. Although undated, this directive was approved by the National Security Council at its June 17 meeting and the final text, incorporating changes made at the meeting, was circulated to members by the Executive Secretary under a June 18 note. (Ibid.) See the Supplement. NSC 10/2 and the June 18 note are also reproduced in CIA Cold War Records: The CIA under Harry Truman, pp. 213-216.

Pamela, A few items worth noting: Nick became a member of the forum about 2 years before Fetzer joined. Fetzer had never heard of Nick Prencipe prior to his [Fetzer's] becoming a member, which is where they were introduced. Fetzer didn't join until Jack White successfully convinced him to do so just as Murder in Dealey Plaza was being published (2000). You should recall that I was directly responsible, from the start, for helping Rich to maintain compliance with forum policies. In that role [sgt-at-arms] it was necessary that I read literally every single post, under every single topic, on the forum and assist Rich in many of the day-to-day maintenance matters. Therefore I am uniquely qualified to report on a variety of the subjects related to that forum, its members, topics, and overall chronology, among others. A few of the founding members of the forum, including me, keep an archive of every message that was ever posted there. Rich did not want these posts to ever be "cross posted" to other forums without the express permission of all parties to the conversation. He also did not want the topics reopened for debate elsewhere as that does not allow a participant in the original debate the opportunity to defend their position at a later time when they may not be aware that it is being attacked. In this case, death--the ultimate silencer--prevents most of the original posters from participating here. So while I am able to "check my archives" I am not at liberty to reproduce the "threads and posts" that would substantiate my claims, and I am, of course, fallible. However, what I have written about this is my very best recollection of what happened there. Now as to some of the more substantive claims you are making let me address just two. I don't know how often you visited the WH Garage, Pamela. My father was with Harry Truman when he received news of FDR's death and became President of the United States. My father knew Nick Prencipe by sight, was often an occupant in vehicles under escort by Nick of the DC Park Police, and sometimes visited the garage himself. My father also knew many of the SS personnel assigned to PPD, including Bill Greer. My father also "couldn't give names" as divulging such information is a form of "breaking the code" so to speak. So whether or not Nick "couldn't" or simply "wouldn't" give those names may never be known. As for the Secret Service claiming that: Did they also mention that they had rendered the crime scene [within the car] inadmissible while it was parked outside of Parkland Hospital? Did they also predict that they would destroy many of their JFK assassination related files in defiance of the JFK Act? Did they also admit to having seriously broken several chains of custody involving key pieces of evidence that would have been required in order to secure a conviction against the accused assassin? I think I've made my point. I'd sooner believe Nick Prencipe than the SS. We know they lied, deliberately, after having failed to fulfill their most important job: Keep the President alive. Pamela, we may come to different conclusions about this issue, find different witnesses to be more credible than others, and--who knows--you may be correct. However, please don't conflate whatever bad blood that exists between you and Fetzer with some sort of sinister plan on his part to undermine your research through hijacking Nick Prencipe's eyewitness account. That is going too far, IMO. The timeline doesn't fit at all. However, Fetzer may have inappropriately used Nick's information in a "less than kind fashion" in his subsequent debate with you. However, let's not taint the eyewitness evidence due to the otherwise offensive utility for which it may have been later exploited.

Jon, First: The dynamic on display here has nothing to do with a "fight" between two members. I am not in a fight with Pamela or anyone else on the forum. Second: Nick's story was later picked up by Fetzer, but it was not fabricated by Fetzer. Therefore any disagreements that Pamela may have had with Fetzer are irrelevant--even those dealing with Nick Prencipe--since Nick told his account prior to his introduction to Fetzer. However, if we focus on certain facts, such as dates, for instance, it is easy to determine at least some of the truth. Because it is well documented that Fetzer's first book on the subject, Assassination Science, was not even published until December of 1998, it is IMPOSSIBLE for her timeline as stated to be accurate. It is impossible for Nick Prencipe to have been "influenced or duped" by a man that he had yet to meet! Indeed, Nick is not mentioned in Assassination Science -- not even one time! Pamela persists in Poisoning the Well as to the credibility of Nick's account by inaccurately associating him with Fetzer in the hope of persuading those who don't know better that Nick's account was somehow unduly influenced by Fetzer. Yet Nick reported his recollections to me and others before he ever interacted with Fetzer. [PS: My account above is not intended to speak in any way (pro or con) to Fetzer's credibility as it is not germane.] So why do I continue to make these points? Because Nick Prencipe was an eyewitness to these events. If Pamela's witness's account contradicts Nick's account, then the researcher should be allowed to make his or her own judgment as to which witness is more credible based on the MERITS of their character, as well as other elements properly utilized for determining plausibility. In this case, I am objecting to the blatant abuse of logic being employed, such as, Guilt by Association (especially since no association existed to begin with!) and Poisoning the Well. Let the witness's account speak for itself and acquire or lose credibility based on its own merit and not on fallacious argumentation. If Pamela has a beef with Fetzer, perhaps that "fight" (to use your word) should remain between them rather than take place here over Nick's grave.

Pamela, I don't think it is appropriate for me to comment further about what transpired on that forum 15+ years ago beyond the following: "Because the deceased (Principe, Dellarosa, Weldon) can no longer defend themselves they are easier targets for those who could not best them while they were still alive." Having said that, let me reiterate how inappropriate it is for you to associate Fetzer with Nick. It is an abuse of logic. I spoke with Nick on the phone in the summer of 1998 for the first time. Neither Nick or I had even met Fetzer (online or otherwise) as of then. Fetzer's first JFK book,"Assassination Science," was not published until the end of that year.

Of course you didn't. Your mind was already made up and you said as much on the Forum when you finally showed up there. Nick Prencipe was advanced in age by the time any of us interviewed him. He had no reason to make this up. It is quite understandable that he could have difficulty with some of his memories, but not with all of them. Nick told me his story BEFORE he had even heard of Jim Fetzer! And Fetzer didn't join the original JFKresearch Forum until much later. You are persisting in utilizing various devices, all of which are fallacious, to dismiss Nick's account. You began with Guilt by Association (to Fetzer) and have now employed Poisoning the Well by suggesting that anyone who researches Nick's ORAL HISTORY of the events he witnessed is wasting their time. No matter. Nick was there. You were not. With all due respect, you seem to have put the cart before the horse. I can't imagine what you mean by saying I 'finally showed up here' -- you must be referencing the thread, as I have been a part of the Ed Forum for quite a while. In addition, I was the first researcher to interview Nick Prencipe. I had no preconceptions. I was excited to find what I hoped would be new information that would add definition to my area of research. After that experience I weighed and evaluated Nick's statements and I even told him my concerns. I did my job. Please don't twist my words. I did not realize until much later that Fetzer had been in the background all along, but that proved to be the case with Nick, as it was with Whitaker and also with Judyth. I have paid my dues trying to fight my way through Fetzer's false history. It is my intent to simply warn others of what they are in for if they bite into it. Apparently you have. Your choice. Nick Prencipe was not there. Vaughn Ferguson was, however, and his chronology and insights define just what happened to the limo after the assassination. It is Ferguson that Fetzer was out to destroy imo. The moment I published the Ferguson Memo that NARA had sent to me by mistake at my website, everything turned upside down. And as far as Fetzer goes, I do take him personally. He put me under attack right from the start. Ironically, at that time he was teaching at UMD which was also where a family member was studying. That was a bit strange... I said: "When you finally showed up THERE..." -- (not here) I am referring to the original JFKresearch Assassination Forum -- aka JFKresarch.com Forum -- aka: Rich DellaRosa's Forum -- which existed for quite a few years (about 6) PRIOR to this forum's birth. Remember, we banned you from that forum for disruptive behavior in violation of Forum Policy when you persisted in arguing, without merit, the case--not so much against a T&T hole in the windshield, but rather with anything Doug Weldon wrote. You were not the first researcher to interview Nick Prencipe. He was actively posting on our forum (JFKresearch Assassination Forum) by then. Fetzer didn't show up on that forum until YEARS later.

Of course you didn't. Your mind was already made up and you said as much on the Forum when you finally showed up there. Nick Prencipe was advanced in age by the time any of us interviewed him. He had no reason to make this up. It is quite understandable that he could have difficulty with some of his memories, but not with all of them. Nick told me his story BEFORE he had even heard of Jim Fetzer! And Fetzer didn't join the original JFKresearch Forum until much later. You are persisting in utilizing various devices, all of which are fallacious, to dismiss Nick's account. You began with Guilt by Association (to Fetzer) and have now employed Poisoning the Well by suggesting that anyone who researches Nick's ORAL HISTORY of the events he witnessed is wasting their time. No matter. Nick was there. You were not.

Your question amounts to: "If the woman in the water was floating, why wasn't she killed for being a witch?" Answer: "Even if she had been killed... her crime wasn't witchcraft; it was floating!" It is a sardonically twisted mind that requires the death penalty as proof of an individual's credibility. The Anatomy of Assassination by Fletcher Prouty

As many of you know, for many years I worked as a police motorcycle escort officer for State Motor Patrol and later for California Motor Patrol. I was also a Certified Instructor for the California Highway Patrol's Motorcycle Safety Training Program. There is a very strong camaraderie that is shared among members of that rather elite (if I may say so myself) membership. During that time I became good friends with the late, Nick Prencipe. Nick had since retired from his job as lead Police Motorcycle Escort Officer for the [Washington] D.C. Park Police. Nick was the lead Police Escort Officer "point man" for all presidential motorcades in and around Washington, DC in support of the Secret Service Presidential Protection Detail. When he retired, the DC Park Police also retired his license plate with him, giving it to him as a memento. That license plate number reads: US Gov 1 --- IOW: It was the very first Federal Issue, "US Gov" plate ever produced. Hence the # 1. Here are excerpts from his account: "Nick Prencipe - This US Park Policeman's statements are puzzling, to say the least, and carry some serious conflicts that have not yet been resolved. Nick insists that he spoke with Greer during the early evening of 11/22/63, and that the conversation took place outside the White House. To all reports, Greer stayed with the body of JFK during the evening and was nowhere near the White House. Thus, Nick's subsequent story is open to question. Nick claims that based on his conversation with Greer, who said that bullets were coming at them from all directions and one of them came through the windshield (something Greer is not on record as saying to anyone else), Nick then went to the 'Secret Service' garage to look at 100X. When I interviewed Nick, he seemed to think this garage was closed down right after the assassination. He claimed that he walked right into the garage and there was no security around 100X. He cannot state at what time this took place. He then lifted the tarp on the car, which was sitting in the middle of the garage, and noted a small, through-and-through bullet hole in the lower passenger-side of the windshield. I asked him more than once if he saw any defect in the area near the rear-view mirror, and he stated that he had not. (A later interview with another researcher triggered his 'not being sure' where the hole was he saw, though he was 100% positive he had seen a hole. This is a good example of the 'hole-is-a-hole' theory.') However, Nick called the White House Garage the "Secret Service" Garage. So did Robert Frazier, whom we know led the team that examined 100X between 1-4:30 a.m. 11/23/63, so this fact adds to Nick's credibility. He spoke of 'lifting a tarp'. The FBI bulky photos show a tarp beside 100X, so this is another point of credibility. He also spoke of being in communication with other DC Park Police as they escorted 100X and 679X from Andrews Air Force Base to the White House Garage. The Taylor/Geiglein report substantiates that it was the DC Park Police who escorted the car; another point of credibility. Nick states that the car was in the center of the garage, and not in its bay; this adds some potential definition as to what time at night he was there -- supposedly, 100X was examined at 9 p.m. by the Secret Service, and at 10pm. a fragment of skull was supposedly retrieved from the floor near the jumpseat by Admiral Burkley, CPO Martinelli and Mills of Burkley's office. That means 100X was probably out of its bay during those examinations. By 1 a.m., when the FBI exam began, 100X was back in its bay, covered with the tarp, roof up, and was driven out into the garage by SA and FBI liaison Orrin Bartlett for the exam. Nick does not recall seeing anyone around the car, nor did he recognize anyone who was present; apparently he just walked right in. While these things are not likely, considering the car was supposedly under guard and all those without White House Garage credentials (such as the FBI) had to log in; however, although security was instituted at 9 p.m., the first entries into the logs were not until 1 a.m., so it could have been that the logs had not been started yet. In actuality, 100X was the center of activity once it was driven to the White House garage at 9pm 11/22/63. Two Secret Service men and a White House policeman were assigned to guard the car; logs were set up to record those without White House garage credentials coming to see the car (the first entries were the FBI team at 1 a.m.). In addition, the Secret Service was determined to scour the car, finding all evidence themselves. Thus, it is highly unlikely that the car was unattended at any time during the evening. In addition, Nick cannot recall the names or faces of anyone who was there that night, nor give any description of them. This calls the accuracy of the timeline of his stated experience into question. Nick's statement does, perhaps, present an insight into a theme common to all the windshield bullet-hole witnesses -- each of them said they observed a small, clean hole, that you could put a pencil through. Ellis and Freeman were motorcycle officers, as was Nick; they had undoubtedly seen bullet-holes through windshields on many occasions. The fact that this hole was smaller than the size of a normal bullet (consistent perhaps with a bb or pellet gun ammunition) and had no white frothing around it, and no spider cracking emanating from it was not a concern to any of them. There may be an explanation -- Nick alluded, in his interview with me, to the fact that he thought the windshield was made of bulletproof glass. If that were the conception of each of these witnesses, they might not know what to expect, and perhaps the inconsistency of this hole with those made from bullets impacting two-ply safety glass would be understandable. However, the windshield of 100X was a standard Lincoln windshield, available at any Lincoln dealership or windshield replacement service. These witnesses didn't know that." ======================================== Note: I was not the interviewer in the above account.

Oh no. Not again. In the month of NOVEMBER the sun is NOT "pretty much" overhead. It is relatively LOW on the horizon when compared to the SUMMER when it is "pretty much" overhead. Look at the SHADOWS in the Altgens photo below. Where is the LIGHT SOURCE (aka: the Sun)? Where is the glare on the windshield?

Thanks David. Good post, Don. Jon, A sniper from the "left front" (Limo's POV) would have the sun essentially to his back. Due to the angle of the windshield's glass, i.e., it is not installed flat, the reflective glare off its surface would tend to "bounce up and away from" the sniper's location, IMO. The vast majority of reflective glare would tend to flash toward the NORTH side of Elm due to the angle of the windshield. Look at the image David posted above. Note the heavy glare from the windshield and chrome that is visible in frame Z-312, which was exposed by a camera located on the NORTH side of Elm. Reflected light ricochets, so to speak, off of the surface it strikes. That's why you position a mirror directly at yourself for viewing. If you were to go outside and stand in front of your car you will not be able to see your own refection in your angled windshield unless you stood so close that you could compensate for the angle or maybe if you knelt on the hood. But from a distance you would not be visible to yourself. I have not tested this recently, but I believe I am correct.

Police snipers, as well as military or otherwise "professional" snipers (aka: assassins), have been regularly trained on accurately taking out targets through glass for decades prior to 1963. High powered rifle rounds can easily penetrate such material without unintended outcomes. Positioned properly, this is not a low percentage shot. Indeed, a shot from the south side of Elm has some tremendous advantages. As the limo bends around the "S" curve it acquires a position where it is approaching a potential sniper nearly head on and the vehicle is dropping below the sniper's horizontal line of sight giving him a slightly downward trajectory. One advantage to this position over the grassy knoll position is that there is much less "lateral" motion with which to contend. Besides adrenalin and lack of sufficient cover, lateral motion is perhaps a sniper's worst enemy. Also keep in mind that: 1) JFK's Military Attache, Air Force General Godfrey McHugh, should have been seated in the front--between SA's Kellerman and Greer--where the attache customarily rides. Had he been in place a sniper would never have had a clear shot at JFK through the windshield. 2) The media press truck normally PRECEDES the presidential limousine in a motorcade so that the reporters can capture as many frontal still images and film footage of the president as possible. In Dallas they too were positioned much farther back in the motorcade. So both the news truck and Military Attache were "out of the way" of a sniper's line of fire. (And, as an aside, according to what Hoover told LBJ, "Connally was hit because he was in the way!" -- Ironic. But that's another topic... )

Nice try. Guilt by association is fallacious. Just because many here no longer respect Fetzer does not automatically mean that everything he has promoted is false. Moreover, our very good, but now deceased friends, Doug Weldon, Jack White, Rich DellaRosa, and John Ritchson, among others, were among the first (on a public forum) to point out the possibility--and provide compelling evidence for--a T&T hole in the windshield long before you even debuted on our JFKresearch Assassination Forum and prior to Fetzer making the claim! As the Archivist of Record for that forum, those conversations began in earnest back in 1999.

Zero mph.

Socratic question number one: Cui bono? (a principle that probable responsibility for an act or event lies with one having something to gain from that act)