Greg Burnham

Precisely. The sin of inappropriate commission, i.e., acting outside the mandates tasked by Higher Authority, and the sin of deliberate omission i.e., failing to act on the mandates tasked by Higher Authority, are sins of equal value particularly when they result in the loss of human life.

As Vice President he had the power, if not the responsibility, to implement the Eisenhower "Operation" for dealing with Castro (for which he [Nixon] had been assigned the task of oversight from its inception) as planned. That plan called for the operation to be launched between November 1960 and January 1961 at the latest. The plan was not contingent on who would be POTUS. Before continuing further with this I suggest you do some Bay of Pigs homework. It will save a lot of time.

Perspective? Yes. Nixon is directly or indirectly responsible for the death or capture of thousands of anti-Castro Cubans from Brigade 2506 due to his postponing the invasion upon his having lost the election to John F. Kennedy. The original plan, approved by Eisenhower, was scheduled to take place in late 1960 under Nixon's management. However, once Nixon digested the bitter truth--that he had lost the election to JFK who was then to be the next president--he refused to launch the invasion plan as approved by Ike. Instead, during the lame duck period, he encouraged the CIA to grow the rather modest Eisenhower approved plan into a full blown amphibious assault operation of military proportions. This was a plan that was never even presented to Eisenhower for approval, but was instead presented to Kennedy as an Eisenhower Plan after JFK took office. It was an act of spite that cost many hundreds of lives, which at the same time allowed Nixon to smear Kennedy's name in blood. See Jake Esterline's Oral History of the Bay of Pigs Invasion on my website for more.

I recently spoke with Alexander Butterfield who confirmed that Nixon and Haldeman (the latter with whom Butterfield was a very close friend) used the phrase "that Bay of Pigs thing" to refer to the assassination of JFK. I know nothing about the veracity of the remainder of the above statement.

One of my interviews with Sherman Skolnick:

I was unaware that Gary Murr had evidence that impeaches this document. Perhaps he will cite his source(s) as I have done here. [edit: I corrected my original post # 20 to add a ZERO to the number 400,000 -- I accidentally left it out. It should have read 4 Million instead of 400 Thousand. A minor error that was irrelevant to the post]

Current results from the poll on my site are listed below. Click on the image to enlarge. If you would like to vote click here. Then scroll down until you see the poll on the right hand side.

Agreed. However, what we do know is that the CIA asked the FBI to trace the spent cartridges "found" on the 6th floor in an attempt to "place them in Oswald's hands." The FBI memo states that the spent casings were traced to Western Cartridge Company of Chicago. They originated from an order placed in 1954 by the US Marine Corps for a batch of 4,000,000 [4 million] rounds. The FBI concluded that the ammunition order was actually placed for the Central Intelligence Agency (through the USMC apparently for "concealment" purposes, according to the memo) since the USMC did not then, nor has it ever, had any weapon through which such ammunition (6.5mm Mannlicher) could be fired. [edit: added a comma and a zero to the number 400,000 as the correct number is 4 million]

Cheryl Abbate's blog addresses many of the specific issues being discussed in this thread.

The first article said: You have got to be kidding me! It is truly a sad state of affairs when it is possible for a researcher or ANY interested party, like an investigative journalist, for instance, to obtain PROOF that the United States made no such promise in the first place, yet they instead open the article with embedded disinformation from the very first line. Some people would prefer to hold on to their hate even when it is ill founded. I am not speaking to Obama's policy here. I am speaking about the Bay of Pigs and the Agency's penchant for post-mortem character assassination. ================================================= I covered this topic in Dallas for COPA on the 50th Anniversary (2013). The Bay of Pigs portion starts--just after the rather emotional part of my presentation--at the 14:45 mark. ================================================= I also covered it much more thoroughly, without time constraints thanks to Len Osanic, on Black Op Radio. I received dozens of emails from listeners who expressed appreciation to me for "finally clearing up" this mis-reported history. The documents I refer to during the radio interview can be viewed in the Dallas COPA presentation [above] or at my website under the Bay of Pigs heading.

Great work, Chris. Like I said on the phone to you on Saturday, my only question really has to do with obtaining confirmation about the film speed for the reenactment film. If you are correct, that it was shot at 24 frames per second, then I really think you have something here.

Thanks for posting this, Doug. I'm sure I will have some questions for you after I speak with Alex Butterfield again.

In a different thread you gave a free pass to the PRESS for their poor coverage of all things JFK assassination related when you said: "...the press, in general, along with many of those original participants being interviewed, had no idea of the extent of the weaknesses which have been revealed in the evidence brought before the Warren Commission." And now you give a pass to Bundy who, according to you, was merely "...repeating what the PRESS was saying." The question for you is: Was Bundy repeating what was reported by the competent PRESS or what was said by the incompetent PRESS? Surely the National Security Advisor to the President of the United States must have known the difference else we would all be enjoying a bowl of Borscht with sour cream for our daily lunch!

In its traditional definition--as the word "solve" relates to the resolution of a crime--the JFK murder is NOT solvable.

Baiting Mephistopheles will only melt the wax in your wings.

Indeed. I am double-unplus Dankbaar about it.

This has nothing to do with us "being friendly" Vince. Seeking clarification of--or even challenging--your "point" is nothing personal. As for me, I do not see the point in posting the obviously faked Dillard photo. It is juvenile at best, IMO. I do not see the point in the TITLE of this thread unless it is to beg for supposition as to LHO's motives...but for what? A crime he did not commit? I don't see the connection to the JFK assassination. Put another way... Even if we were to assume Oswald's guilt (for the sake of argument only), this information remains irrelevant. If we assume Oswald's innocence, as it is the only proper legal presumption, not only is this information irrelevant, but it also lacks context.

As I said in my original post--it is not relevant to the case: IMO

I don't believe a historical coincidence is out of bounds for posting or discussion. I think we should keep things as open as possible. I did not say that I believed this topic is "out of bounds" for posting or discussion. I said that it lacks relevance as posted. Do tell us [assuming Lee Harvey Oswald's presumed innocence, which is a necessarily required presumption absent a trial] what is the specific relevance it possesses?

Unless Vince is suggesting that LHO was attempting to get even with Red Fay, by killing his friend, JFK, this post suggests yet another totally irrelevant inference, IMO.

And sometimes they get back up. It's just that they can no longer keep up with the pack.

I used to enjoy hunting for moles back in the day when they were good at remaining concealed. Today it has lost its challenge. You've taken the sport out of it. It's like hunting a deer with a broken leg. It just lays there.

Postmortem character assassination is a favorite ploy of the CIA. It reduces the quality of the investigation because the victim was of such poor character, morally depraved, a traitor, etc., as to be simply "not worth it" due to the magnitude of their flaws. It was sad that Old Yeller had to die. Hey, but he DID have rabies! Oh well...

I agree that there is less than one side (perhaps only a third of a side) to your approach as it is so narrowly focused. But, I disagree that your position has a "lot of evidence" since you have yet to provide any beyond very, very monotonous--albeit lengthy--anecdotal story telling, constituting repetitive claims...never proved or even supported by any type of documentation. That is not evidence. At best it is conjecture.

I don't believe that Ernie is "defending" the JBS. Nice try. You committed multiple fallacies in a single sentence by both "Poisoning the Well" and employing a "Straw Man" argument. Then there was this: How many "readers here" have read the same thing as you, Paul? How do you know? Are they the "reading only" type of members, who will remain faceless and nameless at your convenience?