Greg Burnham

Many thanks, Barry.

Your tribute speaks to the heart of the issue, as well:

The continued cover up of the truth by successive United States governments with their unwillingness to face the unpalatable truth of John Kennedy’s death perpetuates the aura of mistrust in all governments, a situation that has existed ever since that terrible day in 1963. We need to return to the, at least perceived, faith in our leadership. In short we need true leaders like John F. Kennedy not the petty puppets we have had to endure! -- Barry Keane

Hi Chris,

Thank you very much. It was probably the most difficult speech I've ever given...emotionally, that is. The feelings were generated not so much from the death of a great president,

but more from the death of a great nation that was once governed "of, by and for" We The People. Without a fully functional Executive Branch the balance of power as envisioned

by our Founding Fathers no longer exists. The murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was tragic on so many levels, but none compare to the handicap that has haunted every Chief

Executive since. Under the circumstances of a failed protective detail, a deliberately botched investigation, and a bogus "Official Report" which allowed the perpetrators to escape

with impunity, how can We The People possibly imagine that ANY president since JFK could feel safe? In order to fulfill his oath to Protect, Preserve and Defend the Constitution, a

president may be REQUIRED to "step on toes" as a normal function of his job description and his loyalty to We The People. When the system to keep him or her alive is operational

there need not be any concern for "whose toes" are being stepped on so long as the president is doing the right thing for the right reasons in the best interest of the people of this

country. But when that system fails to keep a president alive and the perpetrators are teflon coated, then he becomes an example of "what will happen to successors" who dare to

defy the shadow government.

As for the Bay of Pigs, according to every source, including those who later blamed Kennedy for the failure, the timeline happened thusly:

At 9:30pm, after being so instructed by Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy called General Cabell to inform him that the pre-dawn airstrikes scheduled for D-Day were cancelled AND that

any further discussion of the subject must be taken up with Secretary Rusk. Cabell called Rusk and requested a meeting at the Secretary's office. Accompanied by Richard Bissell,

Cabell went to Rusk's office arriving at 10:15pm. Colonel Jack Hawkins was in the Command Center and had already heard (from Jake Esterline) that the airstrikes had been cancelled.

He called Rusk's office and personally spoke with Bissell, going through all the talking points that should be argued in favor of the airstrikes. The arguments Cabell and Bissell made to

Rusk apparently did not persuade. Rusk asked them to describe in detail the implications of the decision. They first informed him that by now (almost 11:00pm) it was already too late to

stop the overall landing operation. Then they detailed the four most dramatic impacts of failing to provide the airstrikes. Rusk capitulated regarding air support over the immediate beach

head, but refused to authorize the destruction of all of the remaining T-33's (jets) at the airfields while they were still on the ground, a harbor, and a radio station. Rusk offered Cabell and

Bissell the "privilege" of calling the president to make their case. Cabell and Bissell chose to pass. By now the pilots were already in their cockpits at the CIA airbase at Puerta Cabezas,

Nicaragua ready to take off. The abort signal barely reached them in time or they would have been airborne and on their way. As it was, the delayed launch allowed Castro's T-33's and

a few Sea Fury's to get airborne prior to the arrival of the rebel B-26's. When the B-26's finally did arrive they were all shot down because Castro's planes had not been destroyed on the

ground as originally planned and ordered by Kennedy. Out of a total of 16 rebel B-26's, twelve were shot down by T-33's, one was flying low enough to be shot down by artillery, and the

remaining three were shot down by Sea Fury's.

So it does appear (at least from the above) that by the time the "case was made" to Rusk and a final decision was reached it was too late to call off the landing. However, there is some

conflicting data that was recently declassified that tends to challenge Cabell's assertion that "it was already too late" to call off the overall landing operation. I will eventually get through

it and get back to this aspect of the "Sabotage at the Bay of Pigs" ongoing investigation.

Sabotage at the Bay of Pigs: A Revolution of Mind

I wrote and recited this poem dedicated to all those who serve in uniform and were not able to spend the holidays with their families. It is uploaded on YouTube with the words as the video.

No matter how much we abhor war, the men and women who serve their country honorably deserve our support.

Unfortunately Bill was unable to make it to Dallas this year. I spoke with him on the phone while I was there. I was anxious to finally meet him in person. I think we've known each other for about 15 years, but never met. Perhaps in 2063...

sounds good- thanks for the tip!

Greg Burnham on Black Op Radio discusses: Sabotage at the Bay of Pigs

Vince,

Scott Kaiser used to post here over a year ago. He seemed to be on a mission to track down information relating to his father's work.

Good for him. However, we often interpreted evidence quite differently.

My 2013 COPA presentation will eventually be online at YouTube. Part Two: "Sabotage At the Bay of Pigs" speaks directly to the

unlikelihood that Anti-Castro Cubans were motivated to participate in the assassination. Beyond lack of motivation they also sorely

lacked both means and opportunity. I will be on Black Op Radio to discuss this evidence soon, probably this Thursday. Check the

schedule and tune in...

so old news, from an old source, on the 50th anniversary, quoting a dumbass like Ford...

this would have been interesting news 30 years ago.

Agreed.

The poll did not ask people whether they were " liberal ", " conservative" or Martian, so one cannot conclude that labels determined the results. Also JFK stated that he did not like labels

The conclusion can be reached without having ideological breakdown in the poll. Only 3% of respondents answered that Kennedy's approval was "below average or poor."

Conservatives are the majority in this country, at least when it comes to self-identification. Even assuming that all 3% are conservative, that is a tiny number. Do you see now how my statement (i.e. there are very few people left that could hate him) is obvious?

No.

Long time...William.

Sean,

Who was the source for the claim that Oswald had applied for the job at the ALLRIGHT PARKING SYSTEM?

In a Jerry Rose article,

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48743&relPageId=14

the manager of ALLRIGHT does not recall Oswald ever applying there. This hints at the possibility of Fred participating in a second Oswald ruse.

The same article also states that there are no timesheets showing Fred Kaiser working at the TSBD in November. Yet he claims Nov 21 as his last day of employment. A slight whiff of decaying fish odor here.

One of the items confiscated from Oswald's room by DPD was a map of Dallas that had several locations circled. Oswald allegedly claimed in his interrogation that the circled items were selected as possible employment opportunities during his job search.

If the map is available, it would be interesting to see if ALLRIGHT PARKING was circled.

Does anyone know if ALLRIGHT Parking was located along the motorcade route?

Schieffer has an article in this months ARRP magazine and really does leverage his being in Dallas, establishing a position that he was there and and something of an insider and would have know if something was fishy. He may not intend that but it certainly has that feel.

He also notes that he remains open minded but has never seen a single thing that would tend to change his view of the official story and the WCR. Which of course is fine if he has done any reading or investigation on his own - if he is saying that without having made any inquires over say the last 20 years or read any books such as McKnights, Law's, Feister's etc then I would find it a bit annoying.

I find Schieffer's account quite suspect due to his alleged timeline of the events. In the article you cite he reports the following:

When we got word he had been shot, I raced to the office and, as I pulled into the Star-Telegram parking lot, the bulletin came over the radio: The president was dead. (1)

(3) Now, we know that Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater at 1:40 (Brewer) and entered without buying a ticket. The clerk, Warren Burroughs, called the police who "arrived within a few minutes" at perhaps 1:45 pm. Oswald initially drew attention because he didn't buy a ticket, but that quickly evolved into suspicion of being connected to the murder of Officer JD Tippit. After initially resisting arrest, he was taken into custody and later arraigned (7:10 pm) for the murder of Officer JD Tippit. However, after his arrest, Oswald did not arrive at the Police Department until 2:00 pm. To my knowledge, the media made no announcement as to the identity of the suspect arrested in connection with the president's murder before Oswald arrived at police headquarters. Oswald wasn't even arraigned with respect to the president's murder until the early morning hours of November 23rd, the NEXT day (1:30 am)!

So, what's the real story? Why would Sheiffer make this up, if it did not happen? If it did happen as Scheiffer reports it, how could Marguerite have known Oswald would be named as a suspect PRIOR to it having been announced on the radio? Or, was Oswald already named as the arrested suspect on the radio by approximately 1:30 pm -- 10 minutes PRIOR to his having even arrived at the Texas Theater -- and 30 minutes PRIOR to his arrival at police headquarters?

We know the first attention Oswald received was when Roy Truly took a roll call and realized Oswald was missing from the TSBD. The first "radio" broadcast with his description was restricted to a POLICE frequency at 1:22 pm. It took the police another 23 minutes or so to arrive at the Texas Theater. And then an additional 15 minutes to arrive at police headquarters with suspect in tow by 2:00 pm.

The story seems fishy.

[At 1:38 pm Dallas time] CBS' Walter Cronkite reported: From Dallas, Texas the flash apparently official: President Kennedy died at 1pm Central Standard Time, two o'clock Eastern Standard time, some 38 minutes ago. Vice President Lyndon Johnson has left the hospital in Dallas, but we do not know to where he has proceeded. Presumably he will be taking the oath of office shortly and become the 36th president of the United States.

[edit time correction and details]

It's a "spooky" show... -- (pun intended)

http://www.naturalclimatechange.us/Power%20Points/AGW%20quotes%202.htm

As always, Bill, your work ethic and dedication are outstanding. Many thanks for all you do!

I downloaded the PowerPoint from JFKproject.org just fine, but when I try to open the file I get a message saying that it is password or Digital Rights Management protected. It says that to get access to the presentation I need a different version that is not so protected.

Figures.

I'm having a hard time reconciling Dr. McClelland's statements.

Is he suggesting that the grassy knoll shooter "blew out the right side" of JFK's head and caused "a massive wound in the back of Kennedy's head" with the same shot?

Is it possible to do that with one shot?

--Tommy

Very possible. It's called a tangential shot. I am not arguing that it was possible from the Grassy Knoll, per se. But it is possible, generally speaking, for a single tangential shot to account for a massive obliteration of the side of the head as well as to the back of the head.

It has been suggested to me that the height of man in the doorway - aka "Prayer Man," can be determined if the height of the door is known. This could eliminate Oswald or it could keep him in the running, though not positively confirm it.

If the man is Oswald, he shouldn't have the coke bottle in his hand until after he buys it.

In the C/D film the man in the door way is there when Baker rushes past him immediately after the assassination.

If Oswald, he would then have to go back inside, up the stairs just inside the door and through the offices to the vestibule of the Lunchroom where he is seen by Baker through the window of the closed door. He then has the encounter with Baker and Truly and then buys his coke, leaving the same way he came in.

Then, if this film sequence is three to five minutes after the last shot, you see the same man walking down the steps - does he have the coke now?

▶ L.H. Oswald Leaving TSBD November 22 1963? - YouTube

Hey Bill,

I don't know if there is sufficient detail (information) within this low quality frame to determine who the guy is. However, is it possible that Oswald bought the coke prior to going outside? That he was doing that during the shooting? What if he was (inside) buying a coke at about the time of the last shot, then strolled out front to see what the commotion was as he drank it? By the time he got there it was pretty much over and Baker was running for the front stairs. It was a warm day, Oswald was drinking his coke quickly and headed back inside to dispose of the bottle in the lunch room once he had finished it? Does anyone know if there was a "bottle redemption" value back then? If so, was there a place for the empty bottles? I know there weren't any "recycle" bins back then, but perhaps there was a place for bottles that had a redemption value?

My lotto entry was accepted, which is not necessarily the norm I've been told. However, as of the deadline date of the 15th, I did not receive notification that I would be issued a ticket. So I'm out, I guess.

A list of everyone who applied for but was denied entry would also be interesting to compare with the list of those who were "randomly" selected.

I don't believe I ever saw the history channel episodes on LBJ. Are they available somewhere, or viewable online?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQzLBYZP3mE

It is highly unlikely that they will entertain questions [50 years after the fact] from those to whom they feel no particular obligation. After all, they never adequately responded to the many criticisms observed by the HSCA.

I find the descriptors: "egregious errors" (quoting Pat) and "colossal mistake" (quoting Larry) -- grossly inadequate, considering the depth of the perfidy.

There is so much recycled revisionist history in this post as to make it irrelevant. Official documents are now available that completely and finally disprove much of what was written above. It's as though the author is relying on ancient misconceptions that were promoted by the Agency before the release of classified documents that thoroughly exonerate JFK from the allegations being advanced, as an example, regarding the Bay of Pigs. The record further refutes this author's contention that JFK launched us into the Vietnam War.

He's just making it up as he goes along. Perhaps he's too lazy to actually research the subjects about which he writes. Perhaps Ken Davies is correct.

Although this book's author gets some things right, she also commits several fundamental blunders leaving this work with much to be desired.

Check out David Mantik's review here.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing.

I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing.

And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes!

you know Pat, you been on Mantik for quite awhile... the guy is an MD and also has a PhD. in Physics. Are you jealous he trumps, with credibility, your own un-lettered "medical" case research or something? Get over it!

That's pretty funny! Using the argument by authority against me, when Mantik spends much of his time arguing against people with far better qualifications than himself.

Mantik and I will be sharing a stage at the Wecht Conference. I'll let that audience decide whose "research" is built upon common sense and science, and whose is largely pixie dust.

P.S. There's a reason Mantik posts his stuff on CTKA, and never posts on this forum. No one can call him on his nonsense at CTKA. It's verboten.

There are few with better qualifications than David as far as the JFK case goes in general. As for the specific qualifications to make judgments regarding bullet trajectories, medical evidence, and autopsy materials, particularly x-rays: Who is more qualified than a board certified Medical Doctor with a specialty in RADIOLOGY who just happens to have a PhD in PHYSICS? Who is more qualified to comment on evidence: someone who has handled the actual autopsy materials at the National Archive or someone who hasn't even been to College Park to feed the birds?

These credentials don't make him infallible. But they do make him less fallible than you are in his field of expertise. Prior to my deciding whether or not to have surgery on my cervical spine I asked David to look at my MRI and x-rays. No offense, Pat, but I would not have even asked you for an opinion. If you had offered one after seeing my MRI and x-rays, I would have trusted it and you even less! Why? Because you simply lack the proper qualifications in this field to make a meaningful determination.

Greg,

Thank you for this post. I had not been aware of David's article on Sherry's book. I agree whole heartedly with his conclusions. When Sherry posted on Lancer about this book, which I did buy and read, I commented on the impossibility of a frontal shot at Z 312/3. I pointed out that had such a shot occurred from the Tripple Underpass then it would have needed to pass through the car and was bound to injure other passengers, like nellie Connally first.

I got a reply that basically said she was right and I was wrong.

Unlike David Mantik, I did not have the ability to comment on her actual thesis - the blood spatter as well as the medical contradictions of the skull to such a thesis.

It is an excellent article, which will probably be ignored. However I will be interested if Sherry does respond. I will be interested in her response to the very valid points David has just raised.

James

James,

You weren't aware of it because it's a brand new work! David was here in San Diego about two weeks ago. We met in Coronado where he finished up the details. It's been posted online less than 48 hours.