Jump to content
The Education Forum

Greg Burnham

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,255

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Greg Burnham

  1. Greg Burnham
    Please visit my new AssassinationOfJFK.net YouTube Channel and subscribe. There are already dozens of YouTubes uploaded there and more are being added all the time. Here's a sample of what you can find there:
  2. Greg Burnham
    I agree with you, Paul.
  3. Greg Burnham
    Here you go, Joe:
  4. Greg Burnham
    Most JFK Medical Evidence Would Not Be Admissible at Trial by Douglas P. Horne AssassinationOfJFK.net presents an essay written by Doug Horne, the author of “Inside the Assassination Records Review Board.” In this essay Horne examines how much of the medical evidence he feels would have been admitted into a court of law, his reasons why, and he describes the shady “sleight of hand” activities that were going on the night President Kennedy’s body was returned to Washington.
  5. Greg Burnham
    Please express your opinion on the following topic: "Based on the historical fact that JFK was assassinated as the result of a conspiracy, what role--if any--did Lee Harvey Oswald play in the plot?" Vote here: New Poll [scroll down on right side of page]
  6. Greg Burnham
    51 years ago, on February 28, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent a message to Congress urging them to pass Civil Rights Legislation specifically designed to safeguard the voting rights of minorities. President Kennedy has often been criticized for allegedly "dragging his feet" when it came to matters concerning civil rights. Yet, the record indicates otherwise. One must appreciate the political climate of the time in order to place the tempo of his actions into the proper contextual perspective. Without the power of the Presidency he would have been completely incapable of affecting change to the status quo. This was true in matters concerning foreign affairs (i.e., withdrawal from Vietnam) as well as in domestic matters (i.e., civil rights). By insuring that blacks and other minorities would have the ability to vote Kennedy may have benefitted his chances for reelection by winning some states, and, at the same time, he would have suffered in states committed to segregation. At the end of the day, for President Kennedy, it all came down to doing the right thing simply because it was the right thing to do. Read: Kennedy's Message to the Congress on Voting Rights by scrolling down the page to the avatar (attached below).
  7. Greg Burnham
    Here are the results of the recent poll on my website. If you would like to vote, please do so here as a new poll question will be posted shortly and this one removed. Thanks--
  8. Greg Burnham
    James Tague to Greg Burnham: "I always believed the shots came from the Grassy Knoll." Assassination of JFK.net James Tague Page: The Impact James Tague's Wound had on the Warren Commission's Conclusions RIP
  9. Greg Burnham
    Not a chance. The powers that were able to effectively remove the protection from the president would not have depended on mob shooters when they had professional snipers available for the job. Moreover, professional snipers are dispassionate, unaffected, cold as steel, with no dog in the fight. They have their adrenalin under absolute control. They take orders without a personal investment. Why did the mob want JFK dead? Had he pissed them off? Most certainly. That is not the proper ingredient to insure a steady hand or trigger finger. When you think of a triangulated fire, military style, disciplined ambush--don't think Sonny Corleone. Think Leroy Jethro Gibbs (NCIS).
  10. Greg Burnham
    Hi Zach, I can't say off the top of my head if he mentioned him in relation to MLK. I'll have to check my notes and recordings, which will take time. Eventually I or an associate will get to it. However, he did lump Pico in with "the losers" in a general way because of his likely association with Perdomo, Sturgis, Hunt and Barker. Gerry had a very low opinion of anyone connected to the Agency that was operating domestically, especially in criminal activities, with such poor trade-craft as to get caught in the act. I'll let you know if/when I find more on Pico from Gerry.
  11. Greg Burnham
    Yes. I was not aware that he was actually Raoul at the time of this conversation (circa late 1998). Quite enlightening. My understanding changed significantly as a result.
  12. Greg Burnham
    In this interview Gerry Patrick Hemming describes some of the dynamics within the anti-Castro operations conducted out of JM/WAVE. He reports that there was a large contingency of Cubans on the CIA payroll for the purpose of shutting down operations that Shackley did not control and “snitching” on those who participated in any such operations. Such counter-productive infighting caused Angleton to suspect that Shackley and his whole crew may have been moles. Hemming also identifies the “bag man” for the bribes being paid out to Senators by Trujillo. Audio: Gerry Patrick Hemming on JM/WAVE, Ted Shackley & Moles
  13. Greg Burnham
    I suppose not. But, then again, whether or not one gets caught for the commission of a crime is not the defining moment of their character. Character is defined by choices. So is criminality. Having said that, I am not defending Hemming's opinion--just reporting it. Understood, Greg. Having your interviews with GPH now published is a very good thing. In my opinion, he was an amazing, highly intelligent individual even though he frustrated some people. He and I spoke about Felipe Vidal at great length once and I wish I had recorded that, so kudos for getting him on record. Larry, I agree completely. Martinez was one of the very best at what he did. Gerry could have been a college professor. I doubt that's what he would have done but... Absolutely, David. His mind was encyclopedic. If you didn't piss him off (by "not doing your homework" or asking stupid questions) he'd gush with facts, events, names and dates. Cleaning up his language would have been all but impossible, but that's a price well worth paying even in the classroom.
  14. Greg Burnham
    However, keep in mind that Cooper was relying solely on the Zapruder film [inferior quality or not] to implicate Greer to begin with! So as it turns out, the Zapruder film neither supports nor refutes Greer as a shooter. If the Zapruder film was the sole "evidence" relied upon by Cooper to implicate Greer (and I believe that is the case) we know hypothetically that: a] if the Zapruder film is authentic it still does NOT show Greer shooting JFK and b] if the Zapruder film is not authentic, but altered, it still does NOT show Greer shooting JFK Ergo: There is no known evidence implicating Greer as a shooter.
  15. Greg Burnham
    Thanks, James. I have digitized hours of interviews with Hemming. Stay tuned...
  16. Greg Burnham
    I suppose not. But, then again, whether or not one gets caught for the commission of a crime is not the defining moment of their character. Character is defined by choices. So is criminality. Having said that, I am not defending Hemming's opinion--just reporting it.
  17. Greg Burnham
    I suppose that depends on what one's definition of "loser" might be. Even you placed the word in quotes. In any event, I wouldn't consider someone who breaks into a psychiatrist's office to gather dirt on a president's political enemy a winner. But that's just me.
  18. Greg Burnham
    This is a conversation between Gerry Patrick Hemming and myself (Greg Burnham) that took place in early 1999. The clip picks up just after I asked him if he knew E. Howard Hunt. Gerry, in classic form, deftly dismisses Hunt as a “Hollywood type”. He compares Hunt to what is referred to in the paratrooper business as a “Hollywood Jump” [read: no equipment]. The disdain in his voice is palpable. Gerry Patrick Hemming on E. Howard Hunt
  19. Greg Burnham
    Hi Terry, There is a lot more to come from Hemming! Stay tuned...
  20. Greg Burnham
    Bonanno claims that the relationship between the mob and politicians deteriorated following the assassination. In other words, Bonanno's argument consumes itself, much like the dog that actually caught its own tail and then swallowed the rest of itself whole. According to Bonanno: "...the assassination had long-term negative repercussions for organized crime -- not to mentioned Roselli, who turned up dead and stuffed into an oil drum found floating in the Biscayne Bay. The political assassination, he argues, undermined the alliance between politicians and Mafia leaders who for several decades had quietly worked hand-in-hand to further each other's interests. After Kennedy was killed, neither side could trust the other." [emphasis added] Well, if we are to believe that the mob and the politicians, including officials who controlled the investigation, could not "trust each other" due to the assassination, then it is counterintuitive to imagine these "officials" protecting the mob by allowing Lee Oswald to be framed. Bonanno's argument cancels itself out. Separating the crime of murder from the crime of obstruction of justice (and conspiracy to obstruct) is a mistake. In order for the cover story to hold up at all, let alone for 50+ years, it would have necessarily been formulated PRIOR to the event itself. Therefore, since the official story has it that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, if it was a mob hit, that would mean that the mob set up Oswald as the patsy. But what would cause the mob to even notice Lee Oswald and determine that he was their fall guy? I contend that the cover up is far and away the trickiest part of this operation. In this case, managing it would have been entirely beyond the scope of anything the mob was capable of pulling off. Indeed, the more likely scenario is quite the opposite: The mob and some corrupt politicians still need each other and therefore still cooperate. If true, then this type of misinformation is "part of the deal" where the mob is taking a hit for the team (no pun intended). As Jim Garrison said, from the movie JFK: "Could the Mob change the parade route, Bill, or eliminate the protection for the President? Could the Mob send Oswald to Russia and get him back? Could the Mob get the FBI the CIA, and the Dallas Police to make a mess of the investigation? Could the Mob appoint the Warren Commission to cover it up? could the Mob wreck the autopsy? Could the Mob influence the national media to go to sleep? And since when has the Mob used anything but .38's for hits, up close. The Mob wouldn't have the guts or the power for something of this magnitude. Assassins need payrolls, orders, times, schedules. This was a military-style ambush from start to finish... a coup d'etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings." Did the mafia really manage the JFK assassination? Nope.
  21. Greg Burnham
    Here's the link to the Gerry Hemming Interview, David.
  22. Greg Burnham
    I hope that students seeking the history of the Bay of Pigs find this interview enlightening. Semper Fi, Gerry-- Burnham & Hemming Audio Interview
  23. Greg Burnham
    Thanks John. Google results vary from state to state and from continent to continent. It's good to know it's rising across the pond!
  24. Greg Burnham
    Understood, David. I didn't mean to sound defensive about Prouty. I was simply pointing out some relevant facts. Esterline's comments are subject to our interpretation given that they are only in written form--which leaves some room for misinterpretation. I don't know if Esterline was being critical of Prouty or not. He may have simply been stating a fact. I see how a negative connotation could be drawn from his comments though. I just don't know if that was his intent. Stand by later today. I will upload a 28 minute clip from an interview I conducted with Gerry Patrick Hemming about Cuba and the Bay of Pigs. It's some GREAT stuff. Never heard before. Stand by...
  25. Greg Burnham
    Hi David, I think the written word sometimes lacks the nuances of the spoken word whether in person or over the phone. However, Fletch never had to sign a secrecy oath nor did he answer to the CIA. He was a military man all the way. As Chief of Special Operations he was the one who was tasked with sending the 16 B-26 bombers that were eventually used for the operation down to Arizona for them to be outfitted with eight 50 caliber machine guns in their noses, etc. -- He, like Jack Hawkins, was against the operation--especially at the beginning stages--because too many restrictions were placed on it from a military view point. Once the invasion force had grown to a size that exceeded what could have been considered a guerilla effort and therefore no longer within CIA's purview, those with experience in this sort of thing were not very helpful at all given the restrictions placed on covert operations. By way of analogy: I suppose if a person wanted to steal a car they could employ the effort of a good mechanic to hot wire the car and the two of them could get in and out of a dealership unnoticed if properly planned. But what if the plan was to steal a fleet of cars while under the same restriction of hot wiring each and every car, but not being detected by security cameras? What if Ocean's 11 turned into Ocean's 563 without proper consideration for the increased level of risk of getting caught? There was no covert military paradigm of this scope from which Special Ops could model previously successful campaigns. Prouty's Office of Special Operations could not have been very helpful under such a circumstance, indeed.
×
×
  • Create New...