Greg Burnham

[ ... ]

I realize that my position is in the minority among the JFK research community, but my position has the advantage of a lot of evidence, and a less one-sided approach to the evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

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:

There is no way I'm going to revisit their truly stupid documents to cite chapter and verse on them. I know what I read, and many readers here have read the same thing.

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?

I'll look forward to it, Doug.

[...]

I hope you can see my reasoning, Kathy.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

What reasoning? Reason is exactly what is missing from your methodology.

The sole purpose of that portion of my post was by way of ANALOGY! You cannot seriously be this stupid. The portion of my post that you quoted was only to establish the CONTEXT!!!! It is reporting what did NOT happen, as in, Weberman did NOT claim to have heard the alleged conversation between Hemming and Oswald. He claimed that is what Gerry told him! The rest of the post is the most important, but you ignored it:

My remaining post read:

However, that is NOT the case in this instance. Weberman did NOT claim that he himself actually heard Hemming make the call to Oswald. Weberman only claimed that is what Hemming told him he did--and it's a claim that Hemming denies.

Gerry told me that Weberman got that wrong; that Weberman either misinterpreted the documents, misunderstood Gerry's statement, or simply made it up. Gerry also told Noel Twyman the same thing about this specific allegation from Weberman.

So Paul Trejo says: "This [allegation] must be true because Gerry Patrick Hemming said so." [to Weberman]

But what about the fact that: "Gerry Patrick Hemming denied the accuracy of Weberman's interpretation--separately--to both Noel Twyman [1996] and Greg Burnham [2002]?"

You see, Paul, the PRIMARY SOURCE for the information remains Gerry Patrick Hemming, not A.J. Weberman!

I repeat: The alleged SOURCE of the information is HEMMING. Now you have Hemming's own words to clarify the statements he made to Weberman, notwithstanding Weberman's misinterpretation of those statements. Yet, you cling to the spurious allegation.

Your style and method of research embodies a degree of casuistry I have not previously encountered.

Very informative and thought provoking post, John. The KGB angle is worthy of a closer look if only to demonstrate how the greater agenda of the Sponsors of this and other seminal events transcends international borders, Cold War concerns, as well as, political and idealogical differences.

(5) Gerry Patrick Hemming told A.J. Weberman that he himself called Lee Harvey Oswald the night before the JFK murder, and offered Oswald double the market price of his rifle if he would only bring it to the TSBD the next morning. Because Oswald let himself be fooled by Hemming -- Oswald let himself become part of the plot.

When Noel Twyman asked Hemming about this allegation by Weberman, Gerry answered him in essentially the same way as he answered me. I have already covered this previously, but you have chosen to ignore the evidence, even when it is the product of FIRST HAND PRIMARY SOURCE RESEARCH.

Noel addressed Weberman's eight (8) "allegations" in Bloody Treason, page 720:

2. Hemming set up Oswald at Dealey Plaza--induced him to bring the gun to the Depository by paying him double for it:

Hemming chuckled. Then he said: "What I told him [Webrman], I said, 'How about citing to some authority instead of citing to CIA

documents and then putting your own story in there and not even going according to the text of the document. He has no answers.

It's pure fantasy.'"

Here is the reason that you CANNOT expect to be taken seriously. If Weberman had reported that he had himself heard Hemming make that call to Oswald and was now recounting what he had himself witnessed then THAT would be one thing. A denial by Gerry could then be taken with a grain of salt, at the least. The credibility of Weberman would then need to be measured against the credibility of Hemming.

However, that is NOT the case in this instance. Weberman did NOT claim that he himself actually heard Hemming make the call to Oswald. Weberman only claimed that is what Hemming told him he did--and it's a claim that Hemming denies.

Gerry told me that Weberman got that wrong; that Weberman either misinterpreted the documents, misunderstood Gerry's statement, or simply made it up. Gerry also told Noel Twyman the same thing about this specific allegation from Weberman.

So Paul Trejo says: "This [allegation] must be true because Gerry Patrick Hemming said so." [to Weberman]

But what about the fact that: "Gerry Patrick Hemming denied the accuracy of Weberman's interpretation--separately--to both Noel Twyman [1996] and Greg Burnham [2002]?"

You see, Paul, the PRIMARY SOURCE for the information remains Gerry Patrick Hemming, not A.J. Weberman!

I repeat: The alleged SOURCE of the information is HEMMING. Now you have Hemming's own words to clarify the statements he made to Weberman, notwithstanding Weberman's misinterpretation of those statements. Yet, you cling to the spurious allegation.

Your style and method of research embodies a degree of casuistry I have not previously encountered.

[...] Then the world will finally see the enormous value of Harry Dean's eye-witness account of the ACCOMPLICES of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Accomplices to what? Accomplices to his having been framed? Accomplices to his having never fired a shot? Accomplices to his not being involved in a conspiracy?

I can hardly wait.

Don't be too hard on yourself.

4. Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. [begging the question]

Hey Mark,

Number 4 is incorrect, IMO. A premise is also known as a "given." That is, it is an element of the argument whose validity is stipulated by all parties. Sometimes we even say, "Assume, for the sake of argument, that...blah blah blah."

Blah blah blah is the assumption. That "assumption" would then be utilized as one of the "premises" upon which the argument is built in pursuit of a conclusion.

I think the term "one of its premises" should be replaced with the word "conclusion" in number 4 above:

4. "Thou shalt not argue thy position by assuming its conclusion is true."

Or it could read this way:

4. Thou shall not argue thy position by utilizing the conclusion as a premise. [begging the question]

Greg, do you have a link or reference to the actual CIA file that states Hemming served at Atsuki? It may be in your article and I might just have missed it but if not I'd like to see the original...thanks, Larry

Hemming's CIA Office of Security File # is OS-429-229. It contains a document from 1977 that states: "The 201 file concerning Hemming reflects that he served in Japan with a US Marine Air Wing."

Also see John Newman "Oswald and the CIA."

Notwithstanding Hemming's CIA 201 File, he was telling the truth. Gerry Patrick Hemming was never stationed at Atsugi, Japan.

-- of course its also important not to confuse incompetence with conspiracy (I stole that from the actual quote which I don't recall word for word). Larry

I hate it when that happens. It's like throwing out a disc in your brain. It's not a "slipped disc" -- but a slipped chip.

Please visit the Tribute Page started for Ed at Baylor University.

I agree, Ron.

Indeed, I highly doubt that either Sturgis or Hunt would have been anywhere near DP that day. The planners were too meticulous about details to have allowed their presence. If their performance at Watergate (getting caught) is any indication of their prowess during "Operations"--had they been involved in Dallas--JFK would have lived to a ripe old age.

Ed Sherry, [aka: Tree Frog or just "Frog"] had been very ill for quite some time now. I first learned of this many months ago, but was asked to keep it private. He seemed a bit frail when I spoke with him in Dallas last year, but not exceedingly so. Since then he has been in and out of the hospital. I have been notified by those closest to him that he passed away this morning. I cannot adequately express how much of a loss to the research community his passing signifies. Nor can I express my own personal grief.

May you find peace, my friend.

As always,

GO_SECURE

monk

Place your vote before the poll is taken down.

Current results:

Kornbluh spoke at the AARC conference. I wonder if he talked about this. I say I wonder because he was in the main room while I was speaking on a different floor.

I don't have a lot of faith in Kornbluh since he got so much wrong about the Bay of Pigs, including his continuing to promote the myth that Kennedy cancelled the pre-dawn airstrikes. The record clearly shows that--even according to the statements by both General Charles Cabell and Richard Bissell, neither of whom were JFK "fans"--the first time JFK was brought into the loop during the operation was after the pre-dawn strikes had already been cancelled by McGeorge Bundy under the direction of Secretary of State Rusk. Both Cabell and Bissell confirmed that after Rusk explained to them the reasons why STATE disapproved of the airstrikes they themselves turned down the opportunity to speak to the President when Rusk offered them the chance. There is not now nor has there ever been any documentation indicating that Rusk had JFK on the phone during those critical hours when these decisions were being made. The first time the record indicates Rusk had JFK on the phone so that Cabell could make the case for direct US military air cover was the next morning after the B-26's had all been shot down by Castro's air force. I consider him to be a part of the problem especially because this misinformation is cited by Wikipedia and others.

Greg,

I did ask Mr. Griffin if he was going to respond to the presentations.

His reply was no, but he and the people with him were there for licensure renewal.

Dave

Amazing. That would be like an astronaut attending a Moon Landing Hoax Conference in order to renew his pilot's license!

No criticism intended here, Pat, but I wish you'd asked Griffin: "Why are you attending this conference? Is it a freak show for you? Are you looking to the critics of the Warren Report for CONFIRMATION that the conclusion you already held before attending is correct? If so, this group is a very curious choice for such confirmation. Or, conversely, are you hoping to definitively rule out suspicions that you have heretofore not revealed, yet privately suffered their burden?"

PS: I know that it is sometimes much more difficult to think of apropos questions until after the opportunity has passed...unless, of course, one's name is Drago.

"The interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are now dealing with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact and not waste any more time micro analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long..." -- Vince Salandria

You're welcome, Tommy.

I will be giving a presentation at one of two conferences in Washington, D.C. at the end of the month. The topic of my talk will be:

The JFK Assassination: Assimilating the Anguish

Click for more details.

Cast your vote on my website before the poll ends.

Current results shown below: